IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1329 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- C K PATEL Versus KHEDA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 1329 of 1991 MR MR ANAND for Petitioner No. 1 MR DIPAK C RAVAL for Petitioner No. 1 MR RA MISHRA for Respondent No. 1 .......... for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 07/08/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned advocates Mr. Raval for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra for the respondents. 2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges a provisional seniority list published on 2nd September 1989 against which he had made a representation on 14th September 1989, which has not been decided. 3. It is not in dispute that the representation made by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the provisional list remains as it is, and final seniority list has not been prepared. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra appearing for the respondent states that the respondents have not considered the representation and have not proceeded with the exercise of finalising the seniority list due to pendency of this petition. He states that the respondents are prepared to finalise the seniority list after taking into consideration the representation that is made by the petitioner and that such an exercise would be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from today. 5. In the light of the above statement made by learned advocate Mr. Mishra, learned advocate Mr. Raval does not press this petition. The petition therefore stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [ A.L. DAVE, J.] mathew