Maha Gujarat Hawkers Vepari Mahajan etc. etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation & Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Misellaneous Petition No. 30556 of 1987 and writ petition Nos. 1474 & 1467 of 1987. SLP (Civil) Nos. 47-51, 195-200, 1083-92 and 1999 of 1986; W.P. Nos. 1354, 958, 511, 1398, 1692 370 of 1986; 62,269, 204, 770, 692, 656, 954, 111, 1243 and 1293 of 1987; CMP No. 30556 of 1987 and W.P. Nos. 1474 and 1467 of 1987.
Petitioner: Maha Gujarat Hawkers Vepari Mahajan etc. etc.
Respondent: Municipal Corporation & Others
Apeal: Civil Misellaneous Petition No. 30556 of 1987 and writ petition Nos. 1474 & 1467 of 1987. SLP (Civil) Nos. 47-51, 195-200, 1083-92 and 1999 of 1986; W.P. Nos. 1354, 958, 511, 1398, 1692 370 of 1986; 62,269, 204, 770, 692, 656, 954, 111, 1243 and 1293 of 1987; CMP No. 30556 of 1987 and W.P. Nos. 1474 and 1467 of 1987.
Judges: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 06, 1988
Head Note:
GUJARAT HAWKERS :
Scheme spproved by the High Court as modified by the supplementary report of December 7,1987 affirmed – Further directions to be sought from the High Court in case of difficulty in implementation of the scheme.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have perused the judgment of the High Court against which these Special Leave Petitions have been filed and also the scheme approved by the High Court on April 22, 1987 and the report dated 7.12.87 submitted by High Court to this Court. We have also perused the Writ Petitions which are filed before this Court. On a consideration of all aspects of the case we feel that a scheme approved by the High Court on April 22, 1987 as modified by the supplementary report dated December 7, 1987 submitted to this Court should be affirmed and accepted by us and said scheme as modified by the supplementary report dated December 7, 1987 should be treated as sufficient for purposes of meeting the requirements of the situation. There shall be an order in all these petitions in the above terms in modification of the judgments of the High Court.
2.If any difficulty arises in the implementation of the judgments of the High Court further directions may be sought from the High Court by the parties concerned. All interim orders made in these petitions stand vacated.
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have perused the judgment of the High Court against which these Special Leave Petitions have been filed and also the scheme approved by the High Court on April 22, 1987 and the report dated 7.12.87 submitted by High Court to this Court. We have also perused the Writ Petitions which are filed before this Court. On a consideration of all aspects of the case we feel that a scheme approved by the High Court on April 22, 1987 as modified by the supplementary report dated December 7, 1987 submitted to this Court should be affirmed and accepted by us and said scheme as modified by the supplementary report dated December 7, 1987 should be treated as sufficient for purposes of meeting the requirements of the situation. There shall be an order in all these petitions in the above terms in modification of the judgments of the High Court.
2.If any difficulty arises in the implementation of the judgments of the High Court further directions may be sought from the High Court by the parties concerned. All interim orders made in these petitions stand vacated.
