Gujarat Court February 1987 Judgments
Vinodkumar Hematram Dave Vs. Janseva Education Foundation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)1GLR621
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rules in Special Civil Applications Nos. 236 and 339 of 1987. Mr. Trivcdi appears for respondents Nos. I to 3 and waives service of the rules. Mr. R.N, Shah appears for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and waives service of the rules.2. In this group of five petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, a short question has surfaced for consideration of this Court. It pertains to the fate of students who have joined unrecognised primary teachers training college which are being run by the college authorities who have not got any recognition for their colleges under the provisions of the Gujarat Educational Institutions Regulations Act, 1984 and under the rules framed thereunder being Gujarat Educational Institutions (Preprimary and Primary Teachers Training College) Rules, 1984. Out of these five petitions, the first four petitions pertain to one such unrecognised institution styled as Stri Adhyapan Mandir at Sabarmati run by Janseva Education Foundation, Sabarmati, Ahme...
Tag this Judgment!Bhipat Vira Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)1GLR596
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying that the respondents be directed to release the petitioner either on furlough or parole leave. The respondents have opposed this petition.2. In this case it is an admitted position that the petitioner was convicted on 7-11-1981. On four occasions he was released on parole, and on one occasion, i.e. on 20-9-1985, when he was released on furlough he surrendered late by four days. However, it is significant to note that when the petitioner was released either on parole or furlough at no time any untoward incident or breach of peace took place. It is also an admitted position that since October, 1985, the petitioner is not released on parole or furlough. In this view of the matter, at the time of admitting the petition we passed the following interim order on 17-2-1987:Rule, returnable on 24th February, 1987. By way of interim order it is ordered that the petitioner be released for fourteen days. Whether this release should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Babul Parmaji Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj37; (1987)1GLR614
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. Hawa, the learned Counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the sides, this matter was taken up for final hearing to-day.2. This Special Civil Application is filed by the petitioner for getting the whole proceedings right from the demand of tax by respondent No. 3 from the petitioner vide his letter dated 14-5-1986 quashed and for issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the respondents from recovering any amount by way of tax from the petitioner.3. Mr. Vyas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure 'A' to the Special Civil Application cannot be construed either as an order passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Palanpur or as a notice issued by him under the provisions of the Gujarat Carriage of Goods Taxation Act, 1962 (hereafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act'). Brief facts of this case relevant for the purpose of appreciating t...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Parshottamdas Vanmalidas Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)1GLR637
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application has been filed for the following reliefs:10... ... ... ... ....(a) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order and bill dated 22-12-1986 issued by the Respondent No. 2 as per Annexure 'C' as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.(b) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction holding and declaring that the conditions Nos. 34 and 35 and such other conditions dealing with the matters of assessment of energy supply in the case of malpractice and dishonest use and disconnection of power supply etc. and such other conditions prescribed by the respondent No. 1 for supply of electrical energy in exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, are invalid, unconstitutional, and ultra vires conditions and to strike down the said conditions prescribed by the respondent No. 1 as such.2. For the purpose of the disposal of this case, it is unnecessa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›