IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5462 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- L.K. BAROT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MR ANAND for Petitioner MR RC KODEKAR, AGP instructed by MR SP HASURKAR for Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL Date of decision: 07/07/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the order dated August 1, 1987 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, by which departmental proceedings are ordered to be initiated against the petitioner, is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. At the time of final hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a photostat copy of order dated January 2, 1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city, which indicates that departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner are dropped. The said order is taken on record of the case. In view of the contents of the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that the petition has become infructuous and, therefore, be disposed of accordingly. Having gone through the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, by which departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner are dropped, I am of the view that the petition has become infructuous and deserves to be disposed of accordingly. Rule is, therefore, discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier, is hereby vacated. The petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. ( J.M.Panchal, J.) (patel)