SCA/3888/1996 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3888 of 1996 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3978 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= GG VAHIA - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 11/01/2007 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of SCA/3888/1996 2/3 JUDGMENT the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order restraining the respondents from sending the petitioners on deputation to the Office of the respondent No.3 and have also prayed to quash and set aside the action of the respondent No.1 – Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Limited in transferring the petitioners by way of deputation in the Office of respondent No.3 – Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board. 2. Today, when the matters are called out, Shri B.V.Chavda, Assistant Officer in the Legal Section of the respondent No. 1 – Corporation, is present and Ms. Harshal Pandya, learned advocate, under the instructions from the said Shri Chavda has made a statement that as the petitioners did not give their consent for deputation, the respondent No.3 – Board sent all the petitioners back to the respondent No.1 – Corporation and accordingly, all the petitioners are continued with the respondent No.1 – SCA/3888/1996 3/3 JUDGMENT Corporation. She has also made a statement under the instructions that at present, there is no proposal to send the petitioners to any other department and as and when the occasion arises, the same will be done in accordance with law. 3. In view of the above, no cause survives so far as present special civil applications are concerned and accordingly, these petitions are disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs. [M.R.Shah, J.] kdc