IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2173 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE PRADIP KUMAR SARKAR ============================================================ 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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- AMRATLAL D MEHTA & CO Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner Mr. V.M. Pancholi,GOVT PLEADER for Respondent No.1, 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE PRADIP KUMAR SARKAR Date of decision: 13/06/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. S.M. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitoner and Mr. V.M. Pancholi, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. The petitioner challenged the order of the Government dated 12-3-2001 by which petitioner's Registration under "AA" category of Contractor has been struck off. Having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed the present petition for quashing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during pendency of the case, the Government has re-considered the decision communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 12-3-2001. After considering the representation of the petitioner, Government has cancelled the order 12-3-2001 at Annexure-B, and restored the Registration of the petitoner in "AA" category of Contractors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the Government has cancelled the impugned order, present petition has become infructuous. Accordingly present petition is disposed of as infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the petitoner further submitted that the Registered Contractors of different categories are required to renew their registration, but because of the cancellation of petitioner's registration from "AA" category, his application for renewal of the registration could not be considered by the Government because of the impugned order dated 12-3-2001. Now the Government has revoked the aforesaid order, there is no bar for the Government to consider renewal of Registration of the petitioner in "AA" category at an early date. Copy of the order of the Government dated 8-6-2001 be kept on record. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Dt: 13-6-2001 ( P.K. Sarkar, J ) /vgn