Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK

731 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 401–600.

MANUBHAI REVABHAI SOLANKIversusKANUBHAI POPATLAL BHARVAD

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Manubhai Revabhai Solanki and others, filed a special civil application before the Gujarat High Court. During the hearing, they informed counsel that they no longer wished to pursue the matter and sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The petitioners themselves appeared before the Cou

NAROTAMBHAI MOHANLAL THUMBARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Vanitaben Thumar, owner and occupier of Flat No. 301 in a residential project, applied for an electricity connection which was denied by the distribution authority on the ground of objections raised by third‑party money lenders claiming rights over the property. The petitioner contended that she had established ownersh

VANITABEN NAROTAMBHAI THUMBARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Vanitaben Thumar, owner and occupier of Flat No. 301 in a residential project, applied for an electricity connection which was denied by the distribution authority on the ground of objections raised by third‑party money lenders claiming rights over the property. The petitioner contended that she had established ownersh

WAGAD INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITEDversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Wagad Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat seeking permission to withdraw the petition, stating that it intended to pursue an alternative remedy. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. R.K. Mansuri, requested that the court allow the withdrawal so that the proceedings

SHAHNAWAZ KHAN ALAM KHAN PATHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Petitioner ShahnaWaz Khan Alam Khan Pathan filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat. The petition was at a premature stage and the petitioner sought the Court's permission to withdraw it. The respondent opposed the withdrawal. The Court examined the request and found no impediment to allowing

PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioner filed an RTI application on 15‑06‑2016 seeking land‑record documents from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Mamlatdar, Daskroi, but the information was not supplied within the statutory period. The first appellate authority (Respondent No.3) and later the State Information Commissioner (Respond

DIRECTOR LAKHABHAI KESHWALAversusUNION OF INDIA

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, Director Lakhabhai Keshwala, challenged an order that disqualified him as a director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, which imposed a five‑year ban that has now expired. An interim order dated 18‑04‑2022 stayed the disqualification, allowing the petitioner to enjoy the benefits of the

DINESHBHAI LADUJI VANZARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

The petitioner, Dineshbhai Laduji Vanzara, filed a special civil application challenging a notice issued by Respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that, due to the passage of time, the matter had become infructuous and therefore sought the Court’s permission to withdraw the petition. The Court considered wh

BHAUMIK AMRUTBHAI PARIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, born on 04 July 1997, discovered that his birth certificate erroneously recorded his date of birth as 02 December 1997 due to a clerical mistake by village authorities. He submitted various government documents—school leaving certificate, election card, PAN card, Aadhaar, and passport—showing the correc

KHERUNBEN ISHABHAI DAYMAversusGUJARAT INFORMATION COMMISSION

59-RULE ISSUED & RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED@FH

The petitioner, a widow, sought service records and post‑death benefit details of her deceased husband under the Right to Information Act, after the information authority refused citing Section 8(1)(i). The authority directed her to submit documents, which she did, but the authority still denied the information and the

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANYversusMANGALSINH GEMABHAI BARIA

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Oriental Insurance Company filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the award dated 19 July 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.70 of 2023. The petition also sought to delete the name of counsel Yogesh I

RAVJIBHAI PREMJIBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners purchased land that had been converted from agricultural to non‑agricultural use, paid the requisite stamp duty and an additional deficit of Rs 2,00,001 as directed under Section 41 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, and obtained a certificate on 13‑Oct‑2017. On 11‑Dec‑2025, the Chief Controlling Revenue O

KAMLESHKUMAR RAMANLAL TRIVEDIversusUNION OF INDIA

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Petitioner Kamlesh Kumar Ramanlal Trivedi, who has a pending criminal case, applied for a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) required for a US immigrant visa. The passport authority refused the PCC on 30‑06‑2025, citing the pending case. The petitioner filed a special civil application under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of

KAILASHBEN HARESHBHAI RAMANIversusCANARA BANK

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Kailashben Hareshbhai Ramani, filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat seeking permission to withdraw the petition. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Mahendra U. Vora, requested the court's leave to withdraw the proceedings. The sole issue before the court was whether the pet

RUPAIBEN JETHABHAI CHAVDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, a member of the Rabari Scheduled Tribe, had a caste certificate issued on 21‑03‑2017 but required it in the English format prescribed by the Central Government for a Gujarat Directorate of Posts (GDS) recruitment. She applied on 12‑03‑2026 to the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate, Maliya Hatina, for issu

AMUL CRANKSHAFT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M), PGVCL

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

Amul Crankshaft Private Limited sought to merge an adjoining leased shed into its existing premises for industrial use and applied to PGVCL for a power boundary extension. PGVCL rejected the application, later issuing a provisional and then a final bill alleging unauthorized electricity use, which the company appealed

RAJU DAULATRAI DESAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The petitioner, Raju Daulatrai Desai, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition had become infructuous. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the petition without addressing its merits. The notice was discharg

KACHH DIST. DUMPER OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION , GANDHIDHAMversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The Kachh District Dumper Owners Welfare Association filed a special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging two public notifications issued by the District Magistrate that prohibited heavy and extra‑heavy goods vehicles on certain roads between 6 am and 10 pm and diverted traffic t

PRAKASHBHAI SOMABHAI GANVITversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, a holder of a fishing lease granted on 20 January 2025, invested substantial funds in developing the leased pond. The lease was abruptly cancelled by the respondent authority on 20 June 2025 without any notice or opportunity of hearing, despite objections raised by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner fil

RAMCHANDRA JATINBHAI PATEL S/O DECD. JATINBHAI GOPALBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

Ramchandra Jatinbhai Patel inherited a fair‑price‑shop licence in 2016. After a criminal complaint, he was arrested in 2018 and, while in judicial custody, a show‑cause notice was issued and his licence was cancelled on 11‑05‑2018 without his being served with the order. The petitioner learned of the cancellation only

MADHAVLAL BHALCHANDRA PATEL (DECEASED)versusPATEL DINESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioners, heirs of the deceased litigant, filed a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 36(1)(3) of the Bombay (now Gujarat) Public Trust Act seeking to set aside a Gujarat Revenue Tribunal order that remanded a trust‑property sale back to the Charity Commissioner and to obtain possessi

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT LTDversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Schott Glass India Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Essential Commodities Act, 1956 challenging an order dated 8 July 2008 that imposed a 15% penalty for alleged excess consumption of furnace oil and refused renewal of its solvent license. The company argued that the Solvent Contro

SAMASTA RUPALA PARIVAR SARVAJANIK TRUSTversusMITHABHAI TRIBHOVANDAS PATEL

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The Samasta Rupala Parivar Sarvajanik Trust filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court against Mithabhai Tribhovandas Patel and others. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. M.I. Merchant, informed the Court that he had lost contact with the petitioner and could not proceed without further instructions. Th

TORRENT POWER LIMITEDversusJUNIOR INSPECTOR

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Torrent Power Limited filed a special civil application against a Junior Inspector and another respondent, seeking relief based on a grievance. The petitioner argued that the grievance remained viable, while the respondent contended that the matter had become moot. The court examined the submissions and concluded that

RAMESHBHAI SOMABHAI GAMITversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, elected members of Shri Bhadbhunja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited, challenged an order dated 10 June 2024 issued by the District Registrar under Section 81 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, which suspended the society's Secretary without providing the petitioners with relevant documents

KAUSHIK KAMLESHBHAI BHARAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, a member of the Rabari Scheduled Tribe, sought a direction from the High Court to compel the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate of Upleta to issue a Scheduled Tribe certificate in the English format prescribed by the Central Government, which was required for securing an apprenticeship with Bank of Baroda

PRAVINSINH HIMMATSINH SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The petitioner, a retired forest department official, held a self‑protection arms licence issued in Panchmahal in 1989, which was confiscated in 2018 and later released after his acquittal. He applied to transfer the licence to Vadodara, but the Additional District Magistrate rejected the request and the Home Minister

MEDA DINESHBHAI BADIYABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioners filed a special civil application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State to allot physical possession of land (Survey No. 92, Village Jarikhurd, Dahod) an

SALMAN A. SALAM BAKRAWALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Salman A. Salam Bakrawala, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court seeking relief against the State of Gujarat and others. The petitioner’s counsel later informed the Court that the grievance underlying the petition had been fully redressed, rendering the petition infructuous. Ac

BHURIYA NANJIBHAI S/O PANGLABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioner Bhuriya Nanjibhai filed a special civil application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State to allot physical possession of a specific parcel of land in Nav

VASAVA SANJAYBHAI MANILALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioners sought a quarry lease for ordinary sand from the Narmada River, which the Collector rejected on the basis that the land was not in a designated block, required approvals were missing, and the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2017 made their pre‑Rule applications ineligible. They appealed to the

VASAVA BALUBHAI MANGABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioners sought a quarry lease for ordinary sand from the Narmada River, which the Collector rejected on the basis that the land was not in a designated block, required approvals were missing, and the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2017 made their pre‑Rule applications ineligible. They appealed to the

PREMILA MAHENDRA SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The petitioner, Premila Mahendra Shah, filed a Special Civil Application seeking the release of a vehicle bearing registration No. GJ 16 AY 7179, which was allegedly being withheld by the Geology and Mining Department, Bharuch. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the grievance no longer existed because the concerne

LUCKY DEVABHAI CHAWDAversusMAMLATDAR (RURAL)

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Lucky Devabhai Chawda, sought a direction from the High Court to have his English caste certificate corrected to reflect the proper spelling of his name, which was erroneously issued as 'Luky'. He belongs to the Rabari Scheduled Tribe and had previously obtained a caste certificate in Gujarati (14‑06‑20

MAYANK GIRISHBHAI SHAHversusREGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Mayank Girishbhai Shah, who is on bail in an NDPS trial, applied to renew his passport that was due to expire on 13‑08‑2025. The trial court partially allowed the renewal but imposed a condition that Shah could not leave India without further court permission. The Regional Passport Officer refused to process the renewa

DIWAN SIKANDARSHA HUSENSHAversusFIROJBHAI GAFURBHAI VAHORA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Diwan Sikandarsha Husensha and others, filed a special civil application before the Gujarat High Court. The petition sought relief, but the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Yusufkhan Pathan, informed the Court that the parties had settled the dispute amicably outside the Court. Consequently, he requested perm

M/S DECCAN MINES THROUGH ITS PARTNER ANUJ PRAKASHKUMAR PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

M/s Deccan Mines, through its partner Anuj Prakashkumar Patel, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court against the State of Gujarat and others. The petitioner, appearing virtually, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The Court considered the request and, without examining the

BANSIBEN DINESHBHAI BHARAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Petitioner Bansiben Dineshbhai Bharai filed a special civil application challenging the cancellation of his caste certificate by the authorities. The respondent, the State of Gujarat, argued that the petition had become infructuous because the certificate had already been cancelled. The Court noted that the matter was

VIJAYSINH KHUMANSINH SURATIAversusUNION OF INDIA

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The petitioners, Vijaysin... Suratia and others, filed a special civil application against the Union of India and another party. During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in the petition no longer survived. The court accepted this submission and held that the petition had becom

KANUBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL (NOTARY)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Kanubhai Jethabhai Patel, a notary, filed a special civil application against the State of Gujarat and others. While the petition was pending, the petitioner died. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the death rendered the petition infructuous. The Court accepted this submission, held that the petition could no lon

NARENDRABHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Naren­drabhai Parshottambhai Prajapati, filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution, invoking the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, seeking a declarat

JAYESHKUMAR AMBALAL PATELversusPUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Jayeshkumar Ambalal Patel filed an RTI application with the Public Information Officer seeking details of the financial management and grant utilisation of Singalgadh Village Panchayat, but received only partial information. He appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which ordered the officer to furnish the complete

SATYAM ENTERPRISE THRU PARTNER MANSUKHBHAI HEMANTBHAI BHALALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The petitioners, Satyam Enterprise through its partner Mansukhbhai Hemantbhai Bhalala, filed Special Civil Application No. 3134 of 2022 against the State of Gujarat and others. The petition sought relief, but before the matter could be heard the petitioners informed the Court that the petition had become infructuous. A

SANIL SUTHARversusGAURAV SONI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Sanil Suthar, filed a special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to set aside a penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for the non‑appearance of counsel. The penalty was ordered on 20‑Jan‑2025 in Transfer

MOHSINSHA SALIMSHA DIWANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Mohinsaha Salimsha Diwan, filed a special civil application before the High Court of Gujarat against the State of Gujarat and another party. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Prem K. Shah, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The Court examined the request and, exercising its inhere

MITESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI GURJARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

A special civil application (No. 9960 of 2021) was filed by Maulik M. Soni against the State of Gujarat and another party. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Prem K. Shah, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The Court, after hearing the request, granted permission for withdrawal. Consequently, the

MITESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI GURJARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Mr. Maulik M. Soni filed a Special Civil Application (No. 9953 of 2021) before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the State of Gujarat and another party. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Prem K. Shah, later sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The Court considered whether it could grant such pe

TRILOKIBEN RAJNIKANT GORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Trilokiben Rajnikant Gor filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court seeking relief against the State of Gujarat and other respondents. The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that a certificate of practice had been issued by the Bar Council, rendering the petition unnecessary. The Court held th

GAJUBHAI ALABHAI MERIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

Gajubhai Alabhai Meri filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the State of Gujarat and others. The petitioner alleged grievances that were presented to the respondent authority. The High Court examined the facts and the representation made by the petitioner. The Court concluded that

LALIT MOHANLAL SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, Lalit Mohanlal Sharma, obtained a quarry permit for 10,000 MT of ordinary clay and later applied for a larger permit of 1 lakh MT. While excavating, the Mines Supervisor seized several vehicles and a Volvo excavator under Rule 12(2)(a) despite lacking jurisdiction, and imposed a penalty of Rs 16.33 lakh

KHANT KALIYABHAI CHHAGANBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

The petitioners, forest‑dwelling Scheduled Tribes from Rampura village, Dahod, claim possession of Survey No.28, which they have cultivated since 1980 and on which they paid revenue. They filed writ petitions under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State to allot the land and record their forest rights under

KALPESHKUMAR RAMANLAL PATELversusUNION OF INDIA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Kalpeshkumar Ramanlal Patel, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court seeking permission to withdraw the petition and to pursue appropriate proceedings in another forum. Counsel for the petitioner requested the court's leave to withdraw, citing no substantive merits. The court con

RAMILABEN PRADIPBHAI VANKAR WD/O. PRADIPBHAI DUDHABHAI VANKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Ramilaben Vankar, sought a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to compel the State authorities to register the death of her husband, who was found dead in a canal siphon and for whom a police‑issued death certificate existed. Despite the police

MAKADIYA JIVRAJ HAMIRBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

The petitioners, forest‑dwelling Scheduled Tribes from Rampura village, Dahod, claim possession of Survey No.28, which they have cultivated since 1980 and on which they paid revenue. They filed writ petitions under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State to allot the land and record their forest rights under

BARIA SUNILBHAI MANUBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

The petitioners, forest‑dwelling Scheduled Tribes from Rampura village, Dahod, claim possession of Survey No.28, which they have cultivated since 1980 and on which they paid revenue. They filed writ petitions under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State to allot the land and record their forest rights under

GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARDversusJAYESHBHAI RATILAL MEHTA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board filed a review application (R/Misc. Civil Application No. 695 of 2026) seeking permission to withdraw the filing because the main petition had been remanded to the appellate authority and was still pending. The applicant’s counsel requested that the Court allow the withdrawal

NAYKA VIJAYBHAI NANIYABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

Petitioner Nayka Vijaybhai Naniyabhai filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the District Election Officer (respondent No.2) to decide representations concerning the alleged falsification of a Scheduled Tribe caste certificate by Manjulaben Kishanbh

M/S. KUBER STONE QUARRYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

M/s. Kuber Stone Quarry filed a special civil application against the State of Gujarat and others seeking relief. The respondents filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that a lease agreement for the quarry had been executed on 18‑03‑2026 between the parties. The court took the affidavit and the lease deed on record and h

JADAV MOHSINBHAI AAIYUBBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Jadav Mohsinbhai Aaiyubbhai, filed Special Civil Application No. 10020 of 2021 before the High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. D.M. Khachar, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The Court, after hearing the request, granted the permission to withdraw. Consequentl

MANOJBHAI KANJIBHAI RUPARELIYAversusPASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Manojbhai Rupareliya, a protected tenant and cultivator of agricultural land, applied for a new electricity connection and the upgrade of an existing transformer. Although his application was approved and fees paid, the electricity company (respondent No.3) refused to proceed, citing the need for a No Objection Certifi

VINAYGIRI KALUGIRI GOSWAMIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, Vinaygiri Kalugiri Goswami, was convicted under IPC section 324 and later obtained a probation order under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, with the appeal disposed. He applied for a new passport, but the passport authority refused issuance on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings.

ATUL SURESHCHANDRA MEHTAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant, Atul Sureshchandra Mehta, filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application seeking restoration of his earlier Special Civil Application (No. 31828 of 2025) which had been dismissed for failure to remove objections. The court noted that the dismissal was due to a 43‑day delay in filing the restoration application.

PARESHBHAI JAGMALBHAI JHALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Petitioner Maulik Soni, through counsel Mr. Prem K. Shah, filed a special civil application seeking the Court's permission to withdraw the petition on the ground that it had become infructuous. The respondent State of Gujarat and others were served with notice. The sole question before the Court was whether it could al

NIRMAL BUILD INFRA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

Nirmal Build Infra Private Ltd filed a Special Civil Application seeking a direction that Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2025 be heard and decided expeditiously under Section 8(4) of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. The petitioner argued that the contract dated 2022 and the ar

TRUSHALI VAIBHAV SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Trushali Vaibhav Shah, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to quash the order of the Registrar (respondent No.2) that refused to register a sale deed and certificate of lease‑hold rights for a property auctioned under the SARFAESI Act after the mortgagor, M/s Raj Picture House, defaulted on a lo

RIZVAN AJITBHAI AJMERIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

Rizvan Ajmeri, married with three children, found that the birth certificates of his children incorrectly listed the father’s name as “Salmanbhai Shaikh” instead of his own name. He applied on 22‑04‑2024 to the Registrar under the Births and Deaths Registrations Act, 1969 for correction, but the application was rejecte

RIZVAN AJITBHAI AJMERIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

Rizvan Ajmeri, married with three children, found that the birth certificates of his children incorrectly listed the father’s name as “Salmanbhai Shaikh” instead of his own name. He applied on 22‑04‑2024 to the Registrar under the Births and Deaths Registrations Act, 1969 for correction, but the application was rejecte

EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION OF GUJARATversusEQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The Equestrian Association of Gujarat filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court seeking permission to withdraw its present petition and to file fresh writ petitions before the Delhi High Court, where related writ petitions were already pending. The petitioner contended that the Delhi High Court ha

RATHOD MITALBEN BRIJESHKUMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioner, a mother and natural guardian of her minor daughter Drashti, sought a writ of mandamus directing the registration authority to replace the father's name on the child's birth certificate with her own name. The original certificate listed the first husband’s name; after a second marriage, the second husba

KATARA KASUBHAI DHIRABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, members of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers residing in Chakaliya village, claimed forest rights over survey No. 126 under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules, 2007. Their applications, though approved by th

PATEL KARSHANBHAI CHIMANBHAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Petitioners Patel Karshanbhai Chimanbhai and another filed Special Civil Application No. 14769 of 2024 against the State of Gujarat and another. The petition sought relief (details not specified) but the parties later reached a settlement. Counsel for the petitioners, on behalf of Mr. SP Kotia, informed the Court that

BHIL CHIMANBHAI MANIYABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioners, a group of tribal individuals, complained that they were not provided the necessary forms to lodge their forest‑rights claims, alleging that the authorities had denied them on the ground that the stipulated filing period had elapsed. The respondents, the State of Gujarat, relied on a communication from

SHIV STONE CRUSHERversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Shiv Stone Crusher filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, challenging the rejection of its quarry lease application and the closure of its online ATR account by the Industrial and Mines Department and the Collector of Bhavnagar. The petit

PRATHAM SANJAYKUMAR PATELversusTHE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, born Pratham Sanjay Kantilal Patel, was adopted by a relative in 2006 and the adoption was cancelled in 2017, after which his biological father resumed custody. The petitioner applied to the Regional Passport Officer for a fresh passport reflecting his correct name, Pratham Sanjaykumar Patel, but the ap

M/S SHANTILAL JAMNADAS TEXTILE PVT. LTD.versusGUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

60-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION STAGE

M/S Shantilal Jamnadas Textile Pvt. Ltd. filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court against Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another party. The petition was listed and a notice was issued on 9 February 2022. However, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. A.H. Mohapatra, failed to appear at an

VIPULKUMAR BABUBHAI UDHNAWALAversusCHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER,GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Vipulkumar Babubhai Udhnawala and another filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court against the Chief Election Commissioner, Gujarat and others. The petitioners, through counsel, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The Court considered the request and, without examining the mer

M/S VAIBHAV CORP. PVT. LTD. COMPANYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Vaibhav Corp. Pvt. Ltd., sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, challenging an ex‑parte order dated 03‑Nov‑2023 that demanded a deficit stamp duty of Rs 16,47,562 plus penalty. The land in question was lease‑held by Bhadreshbhai Patel, who entered a developm

M/S VAIBHAV CORP. PVT. LTD. COMPANYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, Vaibhav Corp. Pvt. Ltd., sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 03.11.2023 issued by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Office, which demanded payment of Rs. 17,47,156 as additional stamp duty and penalty. The land in question comprised leasehold plots al

RAMESHBHAI UDABHAI PANTRODversusDISTRICT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

AbdulKasim Hasam Bhaya filed a special civil application against the Union of India. The Court noted that the petitioner had raised office objections that needed to be removed. Justice Hemant M. Prachchak ordered that all office objections must be withdrawn within eight weeks from the date of the order. If the objectio

ANIL PRAFULBHAI CHANGLANI S/O PRAFULBHAI POPATBHAI CHANGLANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Anil Prabhulbai Changalani, filed Special Civil Application No. 3831 of 2025 before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Rishabh R. Jain. During the hearing, Mr. Jain informed the Court that the petitioner does not wish to press the petition. Consequently, the Court ordered that

MINABEN TARUNBHAI THAKKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Minaben Tarunbhai Thakkar, held a mining lease for ordinary sand on 2 hectares of non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur and had his mining plan approved until March 2026. The respondent authorities, acting on instructions from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, locked the petitioner’s ATR and issued a show

BUDHABHAI BALABHAI MEGHNANIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

MINABEN TARUNBHAI THAKKARversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

33-CA DISPOSED OF

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

KARSHANBHAI BHIKHABHAI MARU THROUGH POA ISHWARBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI MIYANIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

MINABEN TARUNBHAI THAKKARversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

MINABEN TARUNBHAI THAKKARversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

PRATAPBHAI SARDARBHAI VANZARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Minaben Tarunbhai Thakkar, held a mining lease for ordinary sand on 2 hectares of non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur and had his mining plan approved until March 2026. The respondent authorities, acting on instructions from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, locked the petitioner’s ATR and issued a show

ASHOKJI GOPIJI VANJARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, were restrained from mining after a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 was issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 was passed by the Collector. The petitioners contended that the Geologist was not

MUKESHBHAI VITHTHALBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Minaben Tarunbhai Thakkar, held a mining lease for ordinary sand on 2 hectares of non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur and had his mining plan approved until March 2026. The respondent authorities, acting on instructions from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, locked the petitioner’s ATR and issued a show

DHANAJI GOPIJI VANJARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

NIRUBEN RAMESHBHAI OADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Minaben Tarunbhai Thakkar, held a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest site in Chhotaudepur and had its mining plan approved until March 2026 under the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. The respondent authorities, acting on instructions from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam L

SANJAYBHAI BUDDHISAGAR SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

JAGDISHBHAI SARDARJI VANZARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

PRATAPBHAI SARDARBHAI VANZARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Minaben Tarunbhai Thakkar, held a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest site in Chhotaudepur and had its mining plan approved until March 2026 under the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. The respondent authorities, acting on instructions from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam L

GANESHBHAI RAMNAJI VANZARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, were restrained from mining after a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 was issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 was passed by the Collector. The petitioners contended that the Geologist was not

AMARSINGHBHAI SARDARJI VANZARAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

BALAJI NARAJI VANZARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Minaben Tarunbhai Thakkar, held a mining lease for ordinary sand on 2 hectares of non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur and had his mining plan approved until March 2026. The respondent authorities, acting on instructions from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, locked the petitioner’s ATR and issued a show

SATISHBHAI NAGINBHAI MODIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

DECD ARVINDBHAI CHANDUBHAI OADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

JAGDISHBHAI SARDARJI VANZARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

SHREE SAI ENGINEERINGversusDAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Shree Sai Engineering filed a special civil application seeking an electricity connection from Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited. The respondent company supplied the connection to the petitioner’s premises at Plot No. 722, GIDC, Ankleshwar. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the grievance remained, but the responde

MAHENDRABHAI KALIDAS BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, holders of a mining lease for ordinary sand on a 2‑hectare non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur, challenged a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 issued by the Geologist and an order dated 04‑04‑2025 passed by the Collector, alleging procedural impropriety. They argued that under Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITEDversusPANOLI INTERMEDIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, an electricity supplier, issued a provisional assessment and a final bill of Rs 22,70,458.89 against Panoli Intermediates (consumer) for allegedly extending its high‑tension supply to adjacent plots without permission. The consumer appealed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

HIFZUL REHMAN MORISWALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioner, Hifzul Rehman Moriswala, challenged a supplementary electricity bill of Rs.2,21,635.73 issued by the power company on allegations of meter tampering and theft. He argued that the meter was replaced after a temporary repair and that the laboratory report on the old meter was inconclusive, seeking to quas

SUNIL SURENDRAKUMAR KAKKADversusUNION OF INDIA

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Sunil Surendrakumar Kakkad filed a Special Civil Application seeking renewal of his passport against the Union of India and another party. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner successfully obtained a renewed passport. Consequently, the petitioner’s counsel applied to withdraw the petition on the ground t

KURESHI IRFANBHAI MOHAMMADSHARIFBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

59-RULE ISSUED & RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED@FH

The petitioners, residents of the Jangleshwar and Nadoda Nagar slums in Rajkot, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 and the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973 for alternative accommodation and a stay on demolition of their homes. The respondents, municipal authorities, argued

LAHERI SALIM YUSUFversusDEPUTY ENGINEER

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

The petitioner, Laheri Salim Yusuf, operating a reverse‑osmosis plant, was issued a notice and a supplementary bill by the Deputy Engineer of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company alleging theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to quas

ARVINDBHAI DHIRUBHAI DUMANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 03‑12‑2025 by authorities under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, but no formal complaint was filed within the period prescribed by the Rules. The petitioner filed a special civil application seeking release of the vehicle,

MAKWANA MAYURI HARDASHBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, a member of the Rabari Scheduled Tribe, sought a direction from the High Court to compel the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate of Porbandar to issue a Scheduled Tribe certificate in the English format prescribed by the Central Government for examination and admission purposes. The petitioner had already

MAKWANA VIRA POLABHAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, a member of the Rabari Scheduled Tribe, sought a direction from the High Court to compel the Mamlatdar officers of Porbandar and Ranavav to issue a Scheduled Tribe certificate in the specific English format prescribed by the Central Government for examinations and admissions. Although the petitioner alr

M.J.EXPORTS PVT. LTD.versusGUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GIDC) LTD

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. filed Special Civil Application No. 19402 of 2015 before the Gujarat High Court against Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Aditya A Asthavadi, sought to withdraw the petition, stating that the matter had been settled out of court. The c

ANILKUMAR MAGANBHAI LATHIYAversusUNION OF INDIA

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioners, Anilkumar Maganbhai Lathiyaa and another, filed a special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Passports Act seeking relief against the impoundment of the passport of a minor, Vivan, whose mother allegedly concealed material facts while applying for the passport. The

HIRALBEN SHARADCHANDRA SIDDHPURAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

The petitioner, Hiralben Sharadchandra Siddhpura, filed a Special Civil Application seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State of Gujarat to correct the birth certificate of her son, Evan, by inserting her name as the mother and removing the father's name. The petitioner requested that the corrected certificate lis

SANTKRUPA STONE CRUSHERversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Santkrupa Stone Crusher filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat seeking relief against the State of Gujarat and others. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent authority passed a final order, which the petitioner subsequently challenged in a separate petition. The Court issued no

MAYUR NARAYANDAS ZAWARversusV.J. BHANDARI

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The petitioner, Mayur Narayandas Zawar, filed a special civil application challenging a notice dated 29 October 2025 issued by the Conciliation Officer, Surat. The respondent, V.J. Bhandari & Ors., through Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara, submitted a communication dated 12 March 2026 stating that the Con

GARA INES SEQUERA QUIJADAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, GARA INES SEQUERA QUIJADA, filed a special civil application before the High Court of Gujarat. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the dispute had been settled amicably between the parties outside the court. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw th

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLERversusNARHARIBHAI KESHAVLAL MEHTA SINCE DECD. THROUGH HEIRS

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The Divisional Controller filed a special civil application against Narharibhai Keshavlal Mehta and others seeking enforcement of a tribunal award of Rs.25,000 arising from a road accident. The court noted that the amount was minimal and there was no dispute over the accident facts. Consequently, the judge dismissed th

SANJAYBHAI VINUBHAI PATELversusUNION OF INDIA

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioners, manufacturers of fireworks, applied for a licence under the Explosives Act in 2024‑25, submitting the required Form LE‑1, fees, fire‑safety NOC and NA permission. The Collector/District Magistrate later issued a Standard Operating Procedure dated 21‑08‑2025 imposing additional conditions, which the pet

VIJAYKUMAR JAGDISHCHANDRA THAKERversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Vijaykumar Jagdishchandra Thaker, filed Special Civil Application No. 773 of 2025 before the High Court of Gujarat. Counsel Nanavati & Co., represented by Mr. Kishan Patel, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The Court considered the procedural propriety of allowing a withdrawal at t

PARESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MAKAVANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

Petitioner Pareshbhai Jentibhai Makavana filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 seeking correction of the father’s and mother’s names in the birth certificate of his adopted daughter Anushree. The Registrar (Respondent No.2) refused, stating that a c

DHARMASUT INDANE GAS AGENCYversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Dharmasut Indane Gas Agency, filed a special civil application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Indian Petroleum Act challenging a termination order dated 01‑02‑2024 that cancelled its distributorship agreement with Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner alleged that the respondent’s show‑c

NATUBHAI LAKHABHAI TALPADAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Petitioners filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court. During the pendency, they informed the Court of a subsequent development and sought permission to withdraw the petition and pursue appropriate proceedings elsewhere. The Court, after hearing counsel, granted the permission to withdraw. The pet

GUJARAT AMUSEMENT AND FUNWORLD PVT.LTD.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Gujarat Amusement and Funworld Pvt. Ltd., operating a water park, applied for renewal of its licence in 2018 and again in 2025, but the authorities failed to decide despite multiple submissions and reminders, causing the park to remain closed and resulting in financial loss. The company filed a special civil applicatio

SHIVRAMBHAI SARENGBHAI SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Shivrambhai Sarengbhai Solanki, filed Special Civil Application No. 15190 of 2018 before the High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Yogesh G. Kanade, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition while retaining the liberty to pursue any other statutory remedy. The Court con

SAROJCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA PATELversusOM ASHRAM TRUST (LAXMINARAYAN TEMPLE)

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Petitioner Sarojchandra Ramchandra Patel filed a Special Civil Application under Section 41A of the Gujarat Public Trust Act seeking relief against the respondents. The petitioner argued that the appellate court had already decided the application, rendering the present petition infructuous. Respondent No.1, represente

SITABEN BALDEVBHAI DESAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioners, long‑time residents of the Mangal Talavadi hutment area, claimed they were eligible for flats under the 2010 Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums Scheme but were denied allotment while others received multiple flats. They alleged illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory conduct by the municipal corpo

GOHEL BHARATBHAI BHAVABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioners, long‑time residents of the Mangal Talavadi hutment area, claimed they were eligible for flats under the 2010 Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums Scheme but were denied allotment while others received multiple flats. They alleged illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory conduct by the municipal corpo

ISHWARBHAI HAMIRBHAI VANSAFODIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioners, long‑time residents of the Mangal Talavadi hutment area, claimed they were eligible for flats under the 2010 Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums Scheme but were denied allotment while others received multiple flats. They alleged illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory conduct by the municipal corpo

AKSHAY PITAMBER SARVAKARversusCENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AUTHORITY

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

The petitioners, who adopted twin girls born in February 2022 after the biological mother’s death, executed and registered an adoption deed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in September 2022. Residing in Victoria, Australia, they sought a No‑Objection Certificate, a support/conformity letter from the

DHARMASUT INDANE GAS AGENCYversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Dharmasut Indane Gas Agency filed a Special Civil Application against Indian Oil Corporation and another party in the Gujarat High Court. The Court examined the petition in the context of a prior order in Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 2024, which had already addressed the matters raised. Finding that the earlie

JAYSHREE BHARATBHAI SHARMAversusTHE BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Petitioner Jayshree Bharatbhai Sharma filed a special civil application before the High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the matter was no longer live and sought permission to withdraw the petition as intractuous. The Court granted the request, ordering the petition to be disposed of as withdrawn

ASHOK SHIVABHAI PARMARversusBAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Ashok Shivabhai Parmar & ors., filed a special civil application before the Gujarat High Court. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners informed the court that the matter was no longer in dispute and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The court granted the request, declaring the petiti

BHILESHA HARISHKUMAR UMAJIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Bhilesha Harishkumar Umaji, filed a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate for himself and his son, alleging that the Social Welfare and Justice Department of Gujarat (Respondent No.2) refused to issue the certificate on the ground that the petitio

RAMABHAI MOTIBHAI BHARWADversusGUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GIDC)

59-RULE ISSUED & RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED@FH

Ramabhai Motibhai Bharwad filed a writ petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution seeking regularisation of an unauthorised construction in a Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) estate, invoking the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022. The petitioner argued that Sectio

GAURAVKUMAR AMRUTLAL GONDALIYAversusSURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner, Gauravkumar Amrutlal Gondaliya, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, seeking correction of his son’s name on the birth certificate issued by Surat Municipal Corporation, which erroneously recorded the name as “Devin” instead of “Ra

BHARATBHAI DEVABHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Bharatbhai Devabhai Patel, filed Special Civil Application No. 2692 of 2026 before the High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner’s counsel sought the Court’s permission to withdraw the petition. The Court, after hearing the application, granted the permission to withdraw. Consequently, the petition was disp

HARDEVSINH BHARATSINH JADEJAversusPASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED(PGVCL)

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Petitioner Hardevsinh Bharatsinh Jadeja filed a special civil application before the High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Kaushal P. Modi, sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court, after hearing, granted the request for withdrawal. The order expressly states that the Court has not exa

DAKSHA NANAVATIversusINVESTOR EDUCATION AND PROTECTION FUND AUTHORITY

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, Daksha Nanavati, sought transfer of physical shares of Navin Fluorine International Ltd. originally held by her deceased mother, invoking a succession certificate and the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) Rules. The respondents, IEPF Authority and the company, refused the transfer, insisting

THE KHEDBRAHMA TALUKA MATSYA UDHYOG COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The Khedbrahma Taluka Matsya Udyog Cooperative Society Ltd. filed a special civil application against the State of Gujarat and others, challenging a grievance related to an election. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the grievance was no longer viable because the election had already been conducted. The Court accept

MUKESH BAVANJIBHAI PARGHIversusTHE DIVISION CONTROLLER

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioner, a driver employed by the respondent corporation, was terminated after allegedly consuming liquor while on duty, an incident that also led to a criminal case under the Prohibition Act, from which he was acquitted. The employee claimed the termination was effected without a proper departmental inquiry, vi

GOSAI PRAVINGIRI DHARMGIRIversusTHE DIRECTOR, ASHOK ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LTD.

59-RULE ISSUED & RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED@FH

Gosai Pravingiri Dharmgiri, employed since 1981 and later transferred with continuity of service, alleged non-payment of wages by Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. (later Kumaka Industries Ltd.). He filed a Recovery (C‑2) application under Section 33‑C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in 2019, which the Labour Court rejec

M/S. MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.versusBAHADURBHAI HARJIBHAI CHAVDA

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd., filed a special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an award dated 23 May 2025 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, which ordered payment of Rs.3,00,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the respondent workman. The workman had

NAGAR PRATHMIK SIKSHAN SAMITIversusMAJOOR MAHAJAN SANGH

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

The Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti (NPSS) filed a writ petition under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an Industrial Tribunal award dated 31‑01‑2018 that ordered wages for 25 part‑time peons. During the pendency of the petition, the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC) entered into a settleme

JAYANTIBHAI MERUBHAI PATELversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICES

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioner, a workman of Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Services, was removed from the waiting list and muster roll by a resolution dated 10‑06‑2010 with retrospective effect, without a hearing. He filed an IDR complaint which, after failed conciliation, was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court partially a

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICEversusHARESHKUMAR SHANKARLAL TRIVEDI

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service filed petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging Labour Court awards that reinstated two daily‑wage drivers with continuity of service but without back wages. The respondents had worked intermittently from 1997 to 2010, often absent for long periods, a

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICEversusJAYANTIBHAI MERUBHAI PATEL

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service filed petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging Labour Court awards that reinstated two daily‑wage drivers with continuity of service but without back wages. The respondents had worked intermittently from 1997 to 2010, often absent for long periods, a

ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD.versusGAURANGBHAI BALDEVBHAI RANA

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd (petitioner) sought to quash a Labour Court award that ordered its reinstatement of senior executive Gaurangbhai Baldevbhai Rana (respondent) with continuity of service. The respondent had been employed since 2004, promoted to Senior Executive, and relieved in October 2020 with notice pay. Th

SWAROOPSINH ARJUNSINH PARMARversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Swaroopsinh Arjunsinh Parmar, a workman employed by Design Private Ltd. at Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd.'s thermal power station, obtained two recovery orders from the Labour Court under Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act directing payment of Rs.2,99,624. The District Collector, however, failed t

GAURANGBHAI BALDEVBHAI RANAversusELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd (petitioner) sought to quash a Labour Court award that ordered its reinstatement of senior executive Gaurangbhai Baldevbhai Rana (respondent) with continuity of service. The respondent had been employed since 2004, promoted to Senior Executive, and relieved in October 2020 with notice pay. Th

CHETANBHAI KISHORBHAI SINDHVADversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Chetanbhai Kishorbhai Sindhvad filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, seeking to set aside a Labour Court order that rejected his application to withdraw a fixed deposit of Rs 1,07,000 placed as compensation by National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Labour Cou

SHINOR TALUKA PANCHAYATversusMANJULABEN SURYABHAI VASAVA

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The Shinor Taluka Panchayat filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a Labour Court award that ordered its reinstatement of a deceased workman with 35% back wages and a recovery order directing payment of Rs 3,50,806 with interest to the workman's heirs. The petitioner argued that the

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.versusRAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI TADVI

RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., the petitioner, challenged an award dated 01‑01‑2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, which held that the inquiry into respondent Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Tadvi’s alleged misconduct was illegal and ordered the company to pay his leave encashment and gratuity with interest. The

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusMAHESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI GAVIT

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The State of Gujarat, represented by the Range Forest Officer, filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging a Labour Court award that had granted the workman, Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Gavit, only 50% compensation in lieu of reinstatement

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusPRABHAKARBHAI HIRJIBHAI CHAUDHARY

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The State of Gujarat, represented by the Range Forest Officer, filed a special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a Labour Court award that granted the workman, Prabhakarbhai Chaudhary, only 50% compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The workman, a watchman employed for ten yea

RAHUL YOGESHCHANDRA DALALversusM/S STYROLUTION(ABS) INDIA LTD

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

The petitioner, an employee of M/s Styrolution (Abs) India Ltd, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a Labour Court order dated 06‑07‑2023 that held a departmental inquiry into his conduct to be legal and in compliance with natural justice. The respondent argued that the writ

ABHESINH AMRABHAI TAVIADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The applicant, Abhesinh Amrabhai Taviad, filed a special civil application for restoration. The counsel argued that the main petition had already been disposed of by the same court. The court noted that since the principal petition was concluded, the present application could no longer be pursued. Consequently, the cou

STATE OF GUJARATversusJAGDISHBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State of Gujarat filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a daily‑wage workman without continuity of service or back wages. The workman had been employed from 1993 to 2008 and was terminated orally without notice. The Labour Court partially all

RAYSINGBHAI CHHATRASINH PARMARversusTHE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IOC LIMITED

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioner, a Helper Grade III workman at IOCL's Gujarat Refinery, was dismissed for habitual absenteeism after an internal enquiry and disciplinary proceedings. He appealed the dismissal before the CGIT‑cum‑Labour Court, which upheld the termination in an award dated 05‑Oct‑2016. Claiming that he was denied a fair

BHAYAVADAR NAGARPALIKAversusALPESH SINH CHANDUBHA CHUDASAMA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The Bhayavdar Nagarpalika filed a special civil application seeking enforcement of a Labour Court order for reinstatement of a workman respondent. The petitioner submitted evidence that the reinstatement had already been effected on 15 November 2025 and requested permission to withdraw the petition. The Court, noting t

BHAYAVADAR NAGARPALIKAversusSAHADEVSINH RANUBHA CHUDASAMA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Bhayavdar Nagarpalika, filed a Special Civil Application seeking relief against the respondent workman. The Labour Court had earlier issued an order mandating the reinstatement of the workman, which the petitioner complied with and communicated to the Nagarpalika on 15 November 2025. After compliance, t

HASMUKHBHAI KACHRABHAI MALIversusEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M)

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Hasmukhbhai Kachrabhai Mali filed an application seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 1691/2007, which had been dismissed for non‑appearance of his counsel. The appeal had been pending since 2007, and on several occasions the advocate engaged by the applicant failed to appear, prompting the court to issue notices re

PRAVINBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATELversusINDIRABEN PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL D/O MOTIBHAI LAXMIDAS

33-CA DISPOSED OF

The petitioners, Pravinbhai Shankarbhai Patel and another, filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application seeking condonation of a 53‑day delay in filing a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order dated 26 September 2025 passed in First Appeal No. 558/2012. The respondents, Indiraben Parsottamb

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusMANGALBHAI BHAVANBHAI SOLANKI

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The State of Gujarat, represented by the Range Forest Officer, terminated the employment of Mangalbhai Solanki, a Rojamdar, orally on 1 October 2016 after more than 15 years of service. Solanki filed an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Nadiad (Reference LCN No. 28 of 2019), which on 30 January 2024 ordered h

SHINGAR LIMITEDversusEMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

Shingar Limited filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a stay of recovery proceedings initiated by the Employee Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) following a Section 7A order dated 16‑01‑2026. The petition argued that the appeal against that order is pending before the Central Government Indust

BABURAO KOLIversusMANAGER SHRI, J.P. EXTRUSIONTECH LTD.

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

Baburau Koli, employed as a driller since 1996, was terminated after an enquiry and raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, which led to a reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court rejected his claim for reinstatement and back wages. Koli filed a petition under Articles 226 and

JEWEL CONSUMER PVT LTDversusGHANSHYAM RAMESHBHAI KACHIYA

PARTLY ALLOWED @ ADMISSION STAGE

Jewel Consumer Care Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a Labour Court award that ordered its reinstatement of a workman with 25% back wages. During the pendency of the petition, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes

JEWEL CONSUMER PVT LTDversusFIROZBHAI AKBARBHAI PARMAR

PARTLY ALLOWED @ ADMISSION STAGE

Jewel Consumer Care Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a Labour Court award dated 31‑01‑2025 that granted reinstatement with 25% back wages. During the pendency of the petition, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes

KHUNJIBHAI HARJIBHAI BHABHORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Khunjibhai Harjibhai Bhabhor, filed a special civil application invoking Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution and the Payment of Gratuity Act, alleging that the State of Gujarat and others had failed to pay full pensionary benefits. The Court observed that the quantum of money involved was neglig

KANTI CHARAN TRIPATHIversusWATER AND SANITATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WASMO

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Kanti Charan Tripathi retired on 28‑02‑2019 and claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. He filed an application for payment after a four‑year delay, and the Controlling Authority ordered payment of 10% simple interest from the date of his application. The Appellate Authority upheld that order, holding that

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search