YOGESH D BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Digant P. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents waives service of the rule. Mr. Shailesh Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the petition qua petitioner No. 1, Mr. Yogesh Bhatt in Special Civil Application No. 2105 of 2000. Permission is granted. The petition. Special Civil Application No. 2105 of 2000 shall stand withdrawn so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs qua petitioner No. 1 only.

(2.) Initially, the petition. Special Civil Application No. 2105 of 2000 was filed for 11 petitioners, of who, petitioner No. 1, Shri Yogesh Bhatt has withdrawn his petition. This Court by an order dated 29-3-2000 had directed the learned Advocate for the petitioners to file one page petitions for individual petitioners and accordingly. Special Civil Applications Nos. 3090 of 2000 to 3099 of 2000 were filed. All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Short facts giving rise to the present petitions are that all the petitioners are suspended Assistant Inspectors of Motor Vehicle or Inspector of Motor Vehicle, as mentioned in the title of the individual petition. By way of this petition they are challenging the suspension orders passed against the petitioners and also the continuation of the same, mainly on the ground that the continuation of the suspension order of the petitioners is discriminatory inasmuch as either the order of suspension of the petitioners is not reviewed by the authorities or that the same is not revoked though the suspension orders passed in case of other similarly situated persons were revoked by the authorities. The other ground of challenge to the continuation of the suspension order is that the said continuation is contrary to various Government Resolutions, which require a periodical review of suspension order and in case of an opinion for the revocation of the same the same shall be revoked. Another point on which continuation of the suspension order is challenged is that there is inaction on the part of the authorities inasmuch as the authorities have not implemented the recommendations of the Review Committee. It is the ease of the petitioners that a meeting of the Review Committee was held on 30-10-1999 and to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners said Review Committee has recommended revocation of suspension orders of the petitioners.