PATHAK PRATIKSHA VISHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the Doctrine of Precedent operate on a steady pitch or shaky pitch is the neat question of law ultimately falling for consideration in the captioned group of petitions.

(2.) The question arises to be considered by this court as the Division Bench in (Dr.) C. A. Shah Vs Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute [1992 (2) GLH 38], the second respondent - the Gujarat Cancer and research Institute not to be 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, now sought to be seriously questioned by the petitioners seeking relief in the present batch of petitions.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Mr.Sudhir Nanavati at the threshold submitted that in view of the decision of Division Bench of this court in (Dr.) C. A. Shah (supra), the third respondent is not a 'state' nor an 'instrumentality of state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was submitted that therefore the writ petition cannot be maintained against the third respondent and no writ lies.