Dismissed

Mohammed Umar Kallubhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC4 Oct 2019SCA/13626/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of special civil applications filed by Mohammad Umar Kallubhai Rajput regarding the denial of a license for an eating house. The court held the petitions infructuous as a 2018 amendment deleted the licensing requirement for eating houses under relevant provisions, leaving no license application pending.

What did the court decide?

The petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous.

Mohammed Umar Kallubhai Rajput Vs State of Gujarat — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/13626/2014 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13626 of 2014

¶4

With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12614 of 2005 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12620 of 2005 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12622 of 2005 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12623 of 2005

¶5

============================================= MOHAMMED UMAR KALLUBHAI RAJPUT

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)

¶8

============================================= Appearance:

¶9

MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 3

¶10

=============================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

¶12

Date : 04/10/2019

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

These petitions are arises pursuant to the denial of license by the respondent no.2 for eating house to the petitioners on the ground that there is no parking space by exercising powers under Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶15

Learned advocate for the petitioners state that by Gujarat Act No.8 of 2018 clause x (xa) of Section 33 of the Act is now deleted, and therefore, the petitioners are not required to obtain license for eating house as provided under Section

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

C/SCA/13626/2014 ORDER

¶18

33 of the Act. In Special Civil Application No.13626 of 2014,

¶19

petitioner has made following prayers:

¶20

“(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the notification issued by respondent no.2 dated 22.09.2005, which is at Annexure – to the petition;

¶21

(b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 02.09.2014, passed by the respondent no.2 at Annexure-B and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 herein to grant license to the petitioner forthwith under the provisions of Bombay Police Act upon the application dated 11.06.2012 made by the petitioner which is at Annexure -F.”

¶22

The aforesaid prayers made by the petitioners, in view of the amendment made by Gujarat Act No.8 of 2018 would not survive as the petitioners are not required to obtain license for the purpose of registration of eating house and the petitions have become infructuous. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶23

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

¶24

NEHA

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Mohammed Umar Kallubhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Umar Kallubhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Superintendent of Stamps

Bijalben Manuji Vaghela Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Mohanbhai Ratanbhai Desai Vs State of Gujarat

Nitinbhai Shankarlal Jani Vs State of Gujarat

Vipul R Shah Rupali Medical & Provision Vs Director General - Office of Director General Competition

Moti Enterprises Vs Union of India