IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2612 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- GUJARAT HOTEL FEDERATION Versus UNION OF INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PM THAKKAR for Petitioner GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1 MR GN SHAH for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA Date of decision: 22/10/1999 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner-Gujarat Hotel Federation has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the Indian Oil Corporation -respondent No.2 regarding increase in price of Liquid Petroleum Gas cylinders containing 14.2 Kgs by from Rs.62.20ps to Rs.107.11ps with effect from March 21, 1987 for non-domestic use as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India on various contentions raised in the petition. 2. When the petition came up for hearing, the learned advocate for petitioner stated in this petition the petitioner has prayed for following relief: "B. Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from effecting the escalation in price of LPG cylinders for non-domestic users without complying with the directions of the Division Bench of this Honourable Court in the matter of fixing the price of gas contained in the decision reported in 1983 (2) GLR page 1437 pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition". 3. It has been stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner that by afflux of time the above said prayer in the petition has become infructuous. Therefore, without entering into merits of the case, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged. No costs. ...