ORDER :

1. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the MACP came to be dismissed citing the provision of Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 observing that the petition was admitted on 30.7.2009 and that MLC certificate has not been produced and when the matter was called out, the applicant as well as the advocate failed to remain present and hence, observing so, the petition was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional MACT (Aux), Godhra in MACP No. 1086/09. The stage for considering the provision of Rule 211 would be at the institution of the claim petition and in absence of any medical certificate of injuries, the claim petition came to be admitted in the file and numbered in the register, then after a long delay, the dismissal ought not to have been under Rule 211 which in this case the dismissal order is of 10.11.2017 almost after 8 years. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the case was of motor accident and certainly the criminal case would have been registered against the driver and thus, stated that the MLC certificate could have been procured under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which could have given the information rega