IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Chandubhai Govindbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. need for guidance (Para 1) |
| 2. delay in suo motu (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. suo motu powers (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. reasonable time (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. reference answered (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
1. This civil reference has come up before this Bench on a reference made by the learned Single Judge as per the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 (in short as 'the High Court Rules'), with the reasons in the referral order that an authoritative pronouncement to provide a guidance to the subordinate authorities as to what would be a reasonable time in a given case for exercise of suo motu power, is needed.
2. A perusal of the referral order indicates that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to note the facts culled out from the record and then noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suo motu power could not have been exercised after a period of 27 years from the date of the alleged dispossession of the tenant, i.e. father of the respondent no.3. It was also noted that th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.