Court : Gujarat
1. The present appeal arises against the order dated 1/9/2010 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7659/2010, whereby the Ld. Single Judge has dismissed the petition.2. We have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned counsel appearing with Ms. Vidhi Bhatt for the appellant.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that earlier Special Civil Application No. 11051/2001 was not pressed with a view to make representation and, therefore, the said ground should not disentitle the petitioner to challenge the decision taken after the representation. It was also submitted that the Ld. Single Judge ought to have examined the merits of the matter as to whether the decision of the authority was legal or not. When we called upon the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to address us on the merits of the main Special Civil Application, it was contended that as per the Government Resolution dated 1/5/2007 representation was made to absorb the petitioner as perma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned APP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.2. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants submit that after initial investigation, the investigating officer has come to a definite conclusion that no offence punishable under SectionS 395, 397, 323, 506(2) and under Section 25(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 27 of Arms Act is made out and accordingly report is submitted to the concerned J.M.F.C.3. Meanwhile, parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the complainant has filed an affidavit on 31^st January, 2011 stating that the complaint was filed in haste and there is no ill-will grievance amongst each other and the dispute is resolved and if the complaint is quashed, he has no objection.4. I have heard learned advocate for the complainant and learned APP.5. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicants and now the report is filed by the investigating...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr.Ashish Desai, Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.2. The applicants original accused Nos.1 & 2 have preferred the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release them on bail in connection with Prohi. C.R. No. 191/2010 registered with Pethapur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 66(B), 65(a)(e), 116(b) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act,1949.3. Mr.P.Y.Divyeshwar, learned advocate for Mr.Mulia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that other co-accused are already released on bail. He has further submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court while releasing them on bail. He has further submitted that the applicants shall reside at 303/B, Vaishnav Devi Complex, Nr.Chandkheda Bus Stand, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad and they shall not leave the local limits of Ahmedabad as well as Chandkh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 14^th June 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Nadiad, in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2006 for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent no.1-accused of the charges levelled against him.2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that on 16^th April 2002 the complainant-Food Inspector has visited the shop of the original accused with Panch, where the original accused was present. It is the case of the original complainant that he purchased 36 pouch of Natural Mineral Water (Amrut) after paying consideration. It is also the case of the prosecution that after following due procedure of sealing, the sample was sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Vadodara for analysis. On examination, the Public A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr.K.P.Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Though Respondent No.3 is served, none appears for him.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:"A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorary or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned order of transferring the petitioner from Sojitra to Limdi and the decision of the respondent no.2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, non-application of mind and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondent to continue the petitioner at Sojitra.B. Pending admission and final disposal of the petition be pleased to suspend further implementation and operation of the order of transfer from at Ann-A and the decision of the respondent no.2 at Annx-E/1 and direct the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"6. The petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-(A) direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner at par with Shri J.J. Raval, in the matter of fixation of seniority for the purpose of promotion on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, and(B) direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, considering 4.6.1979 as the date of joining service as Supervisor, and(C) pending admission and disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from promoting any person on the post of De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges order dated 13-7-2010 passed in Revision Application No.31 of 2010 by the competent/appellate authority, Deputy Secretary (Appeal), Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, whereby the competent authority quashed and set aside the order dated 15-1-2010 passed in Appeal No.106 of 2000 by the Additional Registrar(Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, and remanded the matter to the District Registrar for deciding the matter afresh.2. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.D.P. Joshi for the petitioner that as per the order passed by the competent authority, it was held that before passing resolution under Sec.36 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner and as far this issue is concerned, it was not mentioned in the agenda which was a necessity under the provisions of law and, therefore, the impugned order b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Heard Mr.Tejas Barot, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.3. Today this Court has admitted the appeal filed by the applicants-original accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30^th December 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anand, in Special (S.C. / S.T.) Case No.27 of 2009. The applicants-accused are on bail at present. Amount of fine is already paid by the applicants-accused. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 30^th December 2010 convicted the applicants under Section 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. The learned Judge has also convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. RULE. Learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. The petitioner, by way of this petition, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint, bearing C.R. No. I-162/10, filed before Varachha Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 read with Sections 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not the signatory of the cheque, allegedly issued by his brother for the payment of purchase of machinery from the complainant. She, further, submitted that, under the circumstances, the offences of cheating, misappropriation and fabrication of document cannot be levelled against the petitioner.3. I have perused the contents of the complaint, prima facie, considering the same and also the fact that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, in connection with C.R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr.K.P.Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Though Respondent No.3 is served, none appears for him.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:"A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorary or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned order of transferring the petitioner from Sojitra to Limdi and the decision of the respondent no.2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, non-application of mind and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondent to continue the petitioner at Sojitra.B. Pending admission and final disposal of the petition be pleased to suspend further implementation and operation of the order of transfer from at Ann-A and the decision of the respondent no.2 at Annx-E/1 and direct the responden...
Tag this Judgment!