When the application is called out, the applicant Dr. Anup V. Vidhani, who appears as party-in-person, is not present.
In present application, the applicant appears as party-in-person. On 26.11.2012, below mentioned order was passed:
Petitioner No. 1 Dr. Anup V. Vidhani is present in the Court. He appears as party-in-person. Mr.Vinod M. Vidhani petitioner No.2 is also present in the Court. He has submitted that his son i.e. petitioner No.1 will represent his case as well. Ms. Sudha V. Vidhani, petitioner No.3 is not present in the Court. Dr. Anup V. Vidhani who appears as party-in-person has submitted that petitioner No.3 is handicapped and therefore she is not present in the Court.
At the request of Dr. Anup V. Vidhani, who appears as party-in-person hearing is adjourned.
S.O.
to 17.12.2012.
Accordingly, the hearing of the application was adjourned to 17.12.2012.
Since on the said date voting for election for State Assembly was scheduled, the hearing could not take place and therefore, the hearing was adjourned to 20.12.2012 (i.e. today).
Today, the Registry has placed a Note dated 19.12.2012. Along with the said Note dated 19.12.2012, the Registry has also placed an application dated 19.12.2012 and submitted that the applicant has stated that:
The petitioner 2 submits that he is 71 years of age and patient of heart attack disease and severe osteoarthritis of knee joints. 17.12.12 date was given in above mentioned case and as 17.12.12 was Election Day, 2012.12 has been allotted. Due to ill health of petitioner 2 it will not be possible to attend the hearing hence it is requested to give another date.
Thus, the applicant has requested for adjournment.
It is brought to the notice of the Court that the said petitioner has filed another petition being Special Criminal Application No.2090 of 2012. In the said matter, the Court has passed below mentioned order on 14.12.2012.
Today, this matter is listed on the cause list at serial no.78. On earlier occasion, i.e. on 3.12.2012, the matter was listed at serial no.134. On the said date, i.e. on 3.12.2012, following order was passed:-
The matter is listed at serial No.134 in today's cause list.
Request for priority was made, however, in view of the fact that about 133 matters precede the list for hearing, the request for priority could not be accepted though the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 vehemently insisted for priority.
It is informed by the Court Master that subsequently, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 informed him that Mr. Vinod M. Vidhani, petitioner No.2 herein, is not feeling well and that therefore, they want to leave the Court and hearing may be adjourned to 14.12.2012.
Accordingly, adjournment is requested for before the matter can be called out and taken up for hearing in regular course in seriatim.
Therefore, as per the said request, S.O. to 14.12.2012.
The effect of interim arrangement made earlier shall continue until then.
Today also, at 11.00 O'clock, the petitioner no.1, who appears as party-in-person, again submitted that the petition may be heard on priority in preference over other matters which are higher-up in the cause list.
The petitioner no.1 was explained that it is not possible for the Court to grant priority in preference over matter which are higher-up in the cause list and the matters will have to be taken up in seriatim.
However, the petitioners would still insist for priority hearing.
Furthermore, the petitioner no.1, party-in-person, also asked that the final order may also be passed expeditiously merely on the basis of the material which is available on record i.e. without requiring/asking for proper detailed submissions as to the factual aspects.
In view of the fact that when most of the applicants are asking for priority and when the Court is not granting such request by any one since it is practically and virtually impossible to grant such request and when the admission board is cramped-up with many matters it is not possible to accept such demand. However, the petitioners would insist for priority and preferential hearing.
In view of the submissions of the petitioners, it is appropriate that the matters receive consideration from other Court.
Thus, let this matter receive consideration from other Court.
Office is requested to place these matters before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders to place the matters before another Bench.
The effect of interim arrangement made earlier shall continue until further order.
In view of the said order, the Registry may take necessary steps to place present application also along with the said application for appropriate orders before the Hon ble the Chief Justice.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat* Page 4 of 4