Gulabray vs State

1. Leave to amend the prayer-clause is granted.

2. Mr.

R.C. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner has, at the very outset, submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved, as no decision has been taken upon the representation dated 27th March, 2010 by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation(respondent No.4). It is further submitted that the petitioner has preferred the said representation after passing of the order dated 18th March,2009 by the Division Bench of this Court, in Special Civil Application No.285/2009. It is submitted that if this Court would direct that the said representation be decided, in that eventuality, the petitioner would not be desirous of pursuing the petition.

3. In view of the above statement being made by Mr. R.C. Jani, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the respondent No.4-Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27th March, 2010, as expeditiously as possible, and without avoidable delay.

4. At this stage, Mr. R.C. Jani, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition.

Permission to do so, is granted. The petition is disposed of, as withdrawn.

It is clarified that while passing this order, this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

(Smt.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.) Safir* Top