High CourtsSingle Bench(2000) 06 GUJ CK 0081

Ankleswar Industries vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 30 June 2000

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.R. Tripathi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 2888 of 1991

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 312 words

R.R. Tripathi, J.—The matter was called out twice in the first session and again it is called out in the second half. The learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Mr.K.J. Makwan for Messrs Trivedi & Gupta is present.

2.

The present petition is filed for quashing of the order of respondent no.2, Annexure ''a'' dated 30.11.1987 and also for quashing of the order of the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch in Regular civil Appeal No.13 of 1988 dated 25.4.1990. Mr.Makwan, the learned advocate for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner, partnership firm was allotted a shed no.C-1/B 2529 admeasuring about 704 sq. meters in the name of National Chemical Industries at Ankleshwar by allotment letter dated 11.8.1982. The name of National Chemical Industries was later changed and the partnership firm was reconstituted. Said change was approved by the respondents subject to certain conditions, as per the letter bearing No.RMS/ ANK/ 565 dated 29.1.1983. It is pointed out by Mr.Makwan that those conditions were not fulfilled by the present petitioner and hence the petitioner was directed to vacate the said shed bearing No.C-1/B 2529 at GIDC, Ankleshwar. Against the said order the petitioner had preferred appeal under sec. 9 of the Act before the District court, Bharuch. Said appeal came to be rejected by a judgement and order dated 25.4.1990. It is against the said judgment and order, the present Special Civil Application is filed and the prayer is made to quash and set aside both the orders.

3.

On a perusal of the order at Annexure ''A'', page 9 dated 30.11.1987 and the judgement and order dated 25.4.1998 at Annexure ''B'', no irregularity is found and there is no reason for which a contrary view is required to be taken. In view of the above, the Special Civil Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.