State Of Gujarat vs Thumar Zankhana Ratilal
2021 Latest Caselaw 392 Guj

         C/LPA/69/2021                                     ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 69 of 2021
                                In
           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6457 of 2018
                              With
            CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
                                In
             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 69 of 2021
==========================================================
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
                                  Versus
                         THUMAR ZANKHANA RATILAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DM DEVNANI, AGPfor the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7,8
CHETANKUMAR V DARJI(9309) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
  CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
         and
         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                              Date : 12/01/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

1. We have heard Shri Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State- appellants and Shri Chetankumar Darji, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The learned Single Judge relied upon the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Mansukhbhai Raghadal v. State of Gujarat dated 15.10.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.9331 of 2017 which admittedly decides the issue involved in the present matter also. The judgment in the case of Manish Mansukhbhai Raghadal [supra] has not been carried in appeal and has attained finality. The State having

C/LPA/69/2021 ORDER

accepted the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. We also noticed that subsequently in other matters also, the judgment in the case of Manish Mansukhbhai Raghadal [supra] has been relied upon and even at that stage the State did not choose to challenge the same.

3. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.

4. Consequently, the Civil Application for stay also stands disposed of.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) OMKAR