Gujarat High Court
Karmcharinagar Cooperative Housing ... vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 18 February, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/2378/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2378 of 2016
==========================================================
KARMCHARINAGAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. RONAK RAVAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 18/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Following is the prayer made in paragraph No. 6(B) of the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India:-
6.(B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned notice/order dated 01.02.2016 issued by the respondent No. 2-Joint Registrar (Special Audit) at Annexure-A to this petition.
2. Many fold grievances/grounds are raised by the petitioner in the present petition, so as to challenge the Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri Feb 19 03:51:38 IST 2016 C/SCA/2378/2016 ORDER impugned notice/order dated 01/02/2016. However, learned AGP Mr. Raval under the instruction from Mr. B.M. Joshi, Joint Registrar states that what is referred to by the petitioner in the prayer clause as impugned notice/order dated 01/02/2016 is in fact, not the notice or the order but is internal communication between Joint Registrar and District Registrar. Mr. Raval further submitted that under this communication, the other two persons referred, to whom, the copies of the communication stated to have been forwarded if have sent any details or any material, it shall not be considered, and independent decision shall be taken to decide whether special audit of the petitioner society is required or not. Mr. Raval further states that even the petitioner shall not be required to depute any office bearer in connection with the communication dated 01/02/2016 at annexure-A to the petition.
3. In view of the above statement made by Mr. Raval, learned advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioner does not press for the petition at this stage. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(C.L.SONI, J.) MANOJ KUMAR Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri Feb 19 03:51:38 IST 2016