Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Saurashtra vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|25 January, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Rashesh, learned AGP, Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned advocate and MR. Vaghela, learned advocate for the contesting parties.
2. On 21.10.2011 learned Additional Advocate General had informed the Court that appropriate decision to appoint the liquidator will be taken within short time.
Learned Additional Advocate General also informed the Court that appropriate steps will be taken, within six months, to change the tenure of land from new tenure to old tenure and if so advised and if permissible by law, the zoning of the land in question may also be converted into residential or commercial zone.
3. Since the said submission by the learned Additional Advocate General, almost three months have rolled by, however any development does not appear to have taken place inasmuch as neither conversion of the land and zone as aforesaid has been carried out nor liquidator has been appointed and any details about the steps taken is also not placed on record.
4. For want of necessary details / instructions the petition is being adjourned from time to time since 7.12.2011, without any further progress.
Since last about three weeks, short adjournments have been requested for on behalf of the respondent on the ground that necessary details will be placed on record and the appointment of the liquidator will be finalized, however there has not been any progress on this count as well.
5. Under the circumstances, the Court has no alternative but to impose time frame, however before fixing any time limit, last opportunity until 1.2.2012 is granted with the hope that within said time the concerned authority will take appropriate decision.
In the event any decision is not informed to the Court, then on the next date of hearing the Court may on its own prescribe time limit for taking appropriate decision on the aforesaid three issues. Since the other alternative would be to direct the respondent to make the payment of claims made by the workers which are now supported by the labour Court's order as well.
S.O.
to 31.1.2012.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Saurashtra vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
25 January, 2012