IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3829 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- SHANTAPPA H BHANDARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 3829 of 1988 NOTICE UNSERVED for Petitioner No. 1-2 MS REETA CHANDARANA AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date of decision: 14/10/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT In this petition since the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners had expired, this Court had issued the notice to the petitioners on 13th September, 2004 for engaging another advocate making it returnable on 14th October, 2004. The notices issued to the petitioners have returned unserved. The learned AGP, Ms Reeta Chandarana, appearing for the respondents, on instructions, states that petitioner no.1 had expired way back on 10th February, 1992 and petitioner no.2 had also expired on 21st November, 1994. So far no steps have been taken by the heirs of deceased petitioners to bring themselves on record to prosecute the petition. This Court has, therefore, no choice but to dispose of the petition for want of prosecution. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) *mohd