SUNNY MANILAL PATANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Court: High Court of Gujarat
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Gujarat judgment dated 2024-01-10. SUNNY MANILAL PATANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
R/SCR. A/306/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 306 of 2024 ========================================================== SUNNY MANILAL PATANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR MAYUR RAJGURU(1198) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 VEDANT J RAJGURU(9375) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/01/2024 ORAL ORDER 1. Leave to amend. 2. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties. 3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent – State. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner does not press the prayer clause 9(A) and (C). 5.
By way of present application, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs : “Be pleased to direct the Respondents and particularly Respondent No. 2 to immediately act upon and decide the representation of the petitioner [at Annexure-G] and submit an action taken report before this Hon’ble Court withing a stipulated period of time. R/SCR. A/306/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024 6. After arguing for some time, learned advocate for the petitioner confined relief qua prayer clause 9(B) only. In this regard, he has relied on application / representation dated 13. 10. 2023 and 06. 11. 2023, Annexure-G, which is produced at page 38 of the compilation, addressed to the P. I. Sherkotda Police Station and Police Commissioner. 7. Learned APP has fairly submitted that respondent authority ensured about the safety and security and also consider the representation made by the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact, nothing is remained to further decide in the matter. 9.
In view of above, respondent authority is directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner and inform about the outcome preferably within two weeks. 10. With the aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. 11. However, it is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. In case of any adverse outcome, petitioner shall have liberty to avail appropriate alternate statutory remedy available under the law, if permissible. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) KUMAR ALOK
Source: High Court of Gujarat. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.