IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 12654 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 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? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- DINESHCHANDRA PARSOTTAMDAS SHAH Versus FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT., -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR RC JANI for Petitioner GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 04/04/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the petition, the petitioner though challenged the entire order dated 15-10-1994 made by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 10-4-1992 made by the respondent No.3 but on 17th November, 1994, when this matter came up for admission, the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner confines his challenge against this order only in respect of item `adad' and does not challenge these orders as regards other items mentioned therein. The court made it clear that confiscation of items other than `adad' is not challenged. Only on this limited question, rule has been issued to the other side. Interim relief was refused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show how these orders to the extent it relates to the item `adad' are illegal. It is seizure of the essential commodity and for breach of clause, 3, 8 and 9 of Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers' (Regulation) Order, 1977 the order of confiscation of different commodities has been made. When the orders confiscating other commodities have not been challenged, I fail to see how far it is justified to the petitioner to challenge this order to the extent it relates to the item `adad'. In whole of the writ petition, I do not find anything challenging the orders to the extent it relates to the item `adad'. During the course of arguments also, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to draw any distinction in between this essential commodity and the other essential commodities confiscated. 4. In the result, this special civil application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this court stands vacated. No order as to costs. ********** zgs/-