MAHESHBHAI A. MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) It appears that the State Registrar by order dtd. 22/11/2011 held that the case of the writ applicant be considered appointing inquiry officer under Sec. 93 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Joint Registrar, directing to hold inquiry against the writ applicants and other directors. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dtd. 22/11/2011, the writ applicant constrained to approach the Court. The respondent No.1 by filing the revision application which came to be dismissed by the respondent No.1 by order dtd. 11/10/2012. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/11/2011 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order passed in revision application dtd. 11/10/2012 passed by the respondent No.1, the writ applicants herein constrained to approach this Court by filling the present application under Sec. 226 of the Constitution of India. Notice came to be issued by the respondent No.2 for holding inquiry /investigation against the writ applicants and other directors under Sec. 93 of the Act on 6/1/2011. The inquiry report is dtd. 12/1/2009 and initiation of inquiry under Sec. 93 of the Act is after a period of five years i.e. prior to the date of such inquiry only then orders can be passed.

(3.) Heard Mr. B.S. Patel, the learned senior advocate for Mr. Chirag Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant.