RATIBHAI JOSHI Vs. NAVNITLAL D PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Administrative Officer of Gomtipur Kelvani Mandli Trust, Ahmedabad initially filed this petition through his learned counsel Shri M.A.Panchal. On the death of Mr.Panchal, the petitioner was served with the notice to make alternative arrangement in this matter on his behalf. But after service of that petition the petitioner has not thought it fit to make any alternative arrangement to appear in this matter on his behalf. Hence, this petition is disposed of by this order after hearing Shri Parthiv Sheth for Shri S.V.Raju for respondent Nos.3 to 16 and learned AGP, Shri Pandya for the respondent No.2-State of Gujarat.

(2.) . From the averments made in this petition, it appears that respondent Nos.3 to 17 had filed application No.44/87 before the Primary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad which was entertained by the learned Tribunal on 17.9.1987 and some interim orders were also passed by the Tribunal to the effect that it has jurisdiction to entertain that application. From the averments made in this petition, it also appears that earlier the petitioner had filed writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.2984/88 before this court, which came to be disposed of by common judgment and order dated 8.7.1988 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court (Annexure-D). From the bare reading of the order dated 8.7.1988 at Annexure-D passed by the learned Single Judge of this court it appears that it was a consent order. It also appears from the averments made in para 14 of this petition that later on the petitioner had filed Civil Application in Special Civil Application No.2984/88 for review of the order and recalling the same. No further details are given to what happened to that Civil Application for review filed in Special Civil Application No.2984/88. Be that as it may.

(3.) . It seems that without waiting for the result of that review petition the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the orders dated 17.9.1987 passed by it in Application No.44/87 without placing the same on the record of this case.