IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2246 of 1989 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6614 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- JALARAM JANTA CINEMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 2246 of 1989 MR JAYANT P BHATT for Petitioner No. 1-2 MR UDAY BHATT, AGP, for Respondents No. 1-3 2. Special Civil Application No. 6614 of 1989 MR JAYANT P BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR UDAY BHATT, AGP, for RespondentS No.1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 11/02/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI) 1. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these matters were to be heard with Special Civil Applications No.1994 of 1989 and 1996 of 1989. But, somehow or the other, they were not tagged with those matters and other cognate matters, which came to be finally disposed of on 2nd April, 1998, by a Division Bench of this Court. In that group of matters, being Special Civil Application No.2261 of 1987 and other cognate matters, the Division Bench held that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of general exemption, if any, granted to them and that the petitions were without any merits. All the petitions were, therefore, rejected. There is no dispute about the fact that these two petitions raise grounds similar to those which were raised in those matters. Therefore, for the reasons given in the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 1998 in Special Civil Application No.2261 of 1987 and other cognate matters, both these petitions are rejected. Rule is discharged in each of them with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. [ R.K. ABICHANDANI, J. ] [ A. L. DAVE, J. ] gt