IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2656 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.D.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question 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. 1 to 5 NO ) -------------------------------------------------------------- AMRELI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR JAYANT PATEL for Petitioner GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 3 SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Respondent No. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.D.DAVE Date of decision: 28/08/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT The present petition requires to be disposed of as having become infructuous, because of a very long passage of time and the subsequent development. Upon hearing Ld. counsel Mr. Jayant Patel and Ld. Government counsel Ms. Harsha Devani, it appears that the petitioners were praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the quashing and setting aside the impugned orders Annexure-A dated 1st/ 2nd May 1986 passed by the second respondent and the impugned orders Annexure-F dated 1st February 1983 passed by the 1st respondent. It appears that, later on, despite the filing of the petition the meeting came to be held on May 26, 1986. The nominees representing the government came to be appointed in the Board of Directors in the above said meeting. Later on even those nominee directors have been changed. Because of this, it appears that the present petition require to be disposed of, as having become infructuous. I order accordingly. Petition stands disposed of. Rule shall stand discharged. Interim relief if any also shall stand vacated. No cost. Upon a plea coming from Ld. counsel Mr. Jayant Patel for the petitioner, I would say that, no opinion is being expressed by me while disposing of this petition regarding the contention of the petitioner and the rival contention of the respondents. ----- /vgn.