MCA/681/2005 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 681 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5746 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ===================================================== 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 ? ===================================================== NIRNAJANABEN VINODCHANDRA DAVE - Applicant(s) Versus P.PANEERVEL & 2 - Opponent(s) ==================================================== Appearance : MS MAMTA R VYAS for Applicant(s) : 1, MR NANAVATI, AGP, for Opponent(s) : 1 - 3. ===================================================== MCA/681/2005 2/3 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 23/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) The present application is for non-compliance to the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5746 of 2002. 2. Heard Ms.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nanavati, learned AGP for the respondents. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, it appears that there is no dispute on the aspect that the learned single Judge of this Court simultaneously decided other matters. The State Government carried the matter against aforesaid decision before the Letters Patent Appeal Bench being Letters Patent Appeal No.610 of 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.6.05 reversed the decision of the learned single Judge against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23986/05 was also preferred before the Apex Court which came to be rejected 5.12.2005. It has been further stated by the learned AGP that the Government has framed a scheme and the petitioner is not MCA/681/2005 3/3 JUDGMENT included in cut off date. 4. In view of the above position, the present proceedings for alleged breach of the order are not required to be continued further and hence dropped accordingly. Rule is discharged. (Jayant Patel, J.) (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)