IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8548 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.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? J JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO 1 to 5 No JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ -------------------------------------------------------------- PARSHOTTAM LALLUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS ROOPAL R PATEL for Petitioner MR ND GOHIL AGP, for Respondent No. 1, 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 17/12/1999 ORAL JUDGEMENT Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned AGP Shri ND Gohil. With consent of the learned advocates, the matter is finally heard today. 2. The grievance of the petitioner as ventilated in the petition is with regard to non consideration of his application dated 30.9.99, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure D to the petition, by respondent No. 2. 3. Learned Advocate Ms. Roopal Patel has submitted that application dated 30.9.99 has been made to respondent No. 2 but in spite of receiving the said application, respondent No. 2 has not taken any action in pursuance of the said application. 4. Learned AGP Shri Gohil appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that upon scrutiny of the record of the office of respondent No. 2, the said application has not been found and therefore the application has not been decided by him. 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a fresh application shall be submitted to respondent No. 2 on or before 30.12.99. If such an application is made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2, it is hoped that the said application shall be scrutinised and shall be decided in accordance with law as soon as possible and preferably before 31.3.2000. 6. In view of the above direction, the petition is disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service permitted. ______ (hn)