SCA/5686/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5686 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= RATILAL SORATHIA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, Ms. Phalguni Patel,Asst.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 03/12/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter had come up for hearing on 28.11.2007. Mr. Mehta, Advocate appearing for the SCA/5686/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT petitioner had stated that he would enquire as to whether the petitioner exists or not. 2. The petitioner is a newspaper establishment who has through its editor, preferred present petition under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India against the action of the respondents of not granting and discontinuing the advertisements to the petitioner weekly. It appears that this petition came to be preferred by the petitioner because the respondents had suddenly stopped giving advertisements to the petitioner newspaper. Aggrieved by the said action, the petition was preferred and at the relevant time this Court [Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Abichandani, as His Lordship then was] admitted the petition. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. Mehta, Advocate, submits that the said newspaper establishment has discontinued its activities and has closed down its shutters and that therefore the petition has become infructuous. He, therefore, does not press the petition and submits that the same may be disposed off as infructuous. Since Mr. Mehta, SCA/5686/1997 3/3 JUDGMENT Advocate does not press the petition, the same is disposed of as infructuous. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. [ K.M. Thaker, J. ] rmr.