Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 9]

Gujarat High Court

Shivlal K Purohit vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 July, 2013

Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi, Mohinder Pal

  
	 
	 SHIVLAL K PUROHIT....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/397/2009
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 397 of 2009
 


 


 

================================================================
 


SHIVLAL K
PUROHIT....Petitioner(s)
 


Versus
 


STATE OF GUJARAT  & 
8....Respondent(s)
 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR
AMIT M PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
 

DELETED
for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
 

MR
RASHESH RINDANI AGP  for the Respondent(s) No. 1
 

MR
ADIL R MIRZA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 9
 

NOTICE
SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 9
 

NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 5
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

and
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 12/07/2013
 


 

 


ORAL ORDER

(PER :

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. Learned advocate Mr.Amit Panchal for the petitioner states that the matter was mentioned before the First Court - Hon ble the Chief Justice and Hon ble Mr.Justice Pardiwala - for permitting the petitioner to revive the petition in view of the order passed by the Division Bench on 15.4.2009. The relevant part of that order reads as under:
So far as issue regarding cutting of trees is concerned, the scheme put forward by the State Government shall be complied with. If such compliance is not there, it will be open for the petitioners to revive the petition. Hence, without entering into the merits of cutting of the trees, this petition is disposed of accordingly. Notice discharged.

2. The Note contains the averments as under:

As SCA No.10495 of 2013 pertaining to removal of plants/kiosks is being heard by the Hon ble Division Bench, request is to permit SCA No.397 of 2009 for being circulated before the aforesaid Hon ble Division Bench for Monday, July 08, 2013 and be heard with SCA No.10495 of 2013 as it pertains to trees. Order dated 15.4.2009 permitting revival is annexed. SCA No.397/09, I have no objection to tag with SCA 10495/2013.

3. Order on the Note Per: Hon ble The Chief Justice : Permitted as prayed for , and the order continues to read, Permitted to circulate on 08.07.2013, subject to removal of office objection and as per Roster.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Panchal states that, when his clerk approached the Registry, one Mr.Raghupathi, Deputy Registrar, refused to circulate the matter and conveyed to the clerk of the advocate to that effect. Learned advocate then talked to Mr.Raghupathi who said that as SCA No.397 of 2009 is already disposed of, hence civil application is required to be filed and he expressed unwillingness to comply with the order passed by the Hon ble the Chief Justice on the Note. Learned advocate then asked the said officer Mr.Raghupathi to permit the petition to be tagged with SCA No.10495 of 2013. It is in that regard the subsequent addition is made in the Note by the clerk of the advocate.

4. Registry is directed to place this order before the Registrar General who, in turn, shall call for the explanation of said Raghupathi and place it before this Court.

5. On the request of learned AGP Mr.Rindani, the matter is adjourned to 18.07.2013.

( RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) ( MOHINDER PAL, J.) (KMGThilake) Page 3 of 3