High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 GUJ CK 0083

Nitinkumar Kantilal Parmar vs State of Gujarat and Others

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 13 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.R. Tripathi, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 8737 of 2009

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

6 paragraphs · 366 words

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—On a request made by learned advocate Mr. Pandit for the petitioner, the matter is taken up for Final Hearing. The learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to a communication dated 24th September 2008, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ''D'', page 53. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the decision is reached by the authorities by applying wrong circular, which is not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri) in the matter of Dalsukhbhai Harjivanbhai Nagdukiya v. State of Gujarat and 4 Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 7543 of 2009, which was decided on 19th April 2010. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that for the reasons for which the said petition was allowed, this petition is required to be allowed, as another Special Civil Application being No. 8481 of 2010 was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 6th September 2010.

2.

Learned AGP Mr. Pathak has no objection if the matter is heard finally today. Though served, nobody appears for respondent No. 2.

3.

For the reasons recorded in Special Civil Application No. 7543 of 2009, which was decided on 19th April 2010, this petition is allowed. The communication dated 24th September 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Mid-day Meal and Schools, Gandhinagar for deciding the case of the petitioner in light of the policy which is applicable to the facts of the present case.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed a Representation dated 13th October 2008. He requests that the same be directed to be decided in a prescribed time frame.

3.2 The request is granted. The authority is directed to decide the Representation, Annexure ''E'', dated 13th October 2008, as expeditiously as possible but not later than 27th October 2010.

4.

Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be made available to learned AGP Mr. Pathak for its onward communication for compliance.