State Of Gujarat vs Kachhadiya Atulaben Jayantibhai
2021 Latest Caselaw 908 Guj

           C/LPA/102/2021                                            ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 102 of 2021
           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7836 of 2018
                                With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
             In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 102 of 2021
==========================================================
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
                                Versus
                   KACHHADIYA ATULABEN JAYANTIBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
for the Respondent(s) No. 7
MR CHETANKUMAR V DARJI(9309) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,8,9
==========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
           NATH
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                                Date : 20/01/2021

                                 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 respondents.

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

C/LPA/102/2021 ORDER

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 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) P. SUBRAHMANYAM