Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

N S SANJAY GOWDA

104 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

STATE OF GUJARATversusDIVYAKALABEN DANJIBHAI BARAIYA

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 694 of 2026 against Divyakalanben Danjibhai Baraiya and others. The appeal raised certain issues that had already been examined in Letters Patent Appeal No. 448/2026, where the State's pleas were dismissed. The Court noted that there was no dispute that the same is

YOGESH DASHRATHBHAI PATELversusDISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GANDHINAGAR

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners Yogesh Dashrathbhai Patel and another filed a civil application before the Gujarat High Court seeking condonation of a 273‑day delay in filing an appeal against the order of the District Development Officer, Gandhinagar. The respondent, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, waived service of

CHIEF OFFICER, DHARAMPUR NAGAR PALIKAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Four former employees of Dharampur Nagar Palika claimed pension benefits after reaching superannuation. The petitioners argued that, like earlier panchayat employees who were absorbed into the municipality, they were entitled to pension under the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme. The Single Judge had directed that a

BHARATKUMAR RAMANBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State Government in 2009 attempted to cancel a higher pay scale (Rs 5,000‑8,000) granted to librarians who had completed nine years of service, issuing recovery instructions. The librarians challenged the cancellation through Special Civil Applications (Nos. 10305‑10307 of 2009). A Single Judge quashed the cancella

VARSHABEN BHUPENDRABHAI TRANSAVALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State Government in 2009 attempted to cancel a higher pay scale (Rs 5,000‑8,000) granted to librarians who had completed nine years of service, issuing recovery instructions. The librarians challenged the cancellation through Special Civil Applications (Nos. 10305‑10307 of 2009). A Single Judge quashed the cancella

DINESHKUMAR JETHALAL PARMARversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

D.J. Parmar, a railway employee, was charged in 1999 with abusing his position to help his daughter cheat in a Railway Recruitment Board exam, leading to his removal from service. The charge was based on alleged manipulation of his nomination as centre‑in‑charge and tampering with answer sheets, with evidence from subo

M/S. JANARDAN J. RAVALversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

M/s. Janardan J. Raval filed a Special Civil Application (writ petition) before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner’s counsel submitted written instructions to withdraw the petition and placed the instructions on record. The Court considered the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. Accepting the writt

M/S SEEBAAT DEVELOPERSversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat issued an e‑auction tender for plots, requiring bidders to deposit an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and submit a sealed bid. M/s Seebaat Developers deposited the EMD and tender fee but claimed a technical glitch prevented submission of a sealed bid; the authority rejected the claim and forfeited the

KANDLA PORT TRUST (NOW DEENDAYAL PORT TRUST)versusSANJAY JAGDISHBHAI BHATY

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The Gujarat High Court considered a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Kandla Port Trust (now Deendayal Port Trust) against a single judge’s order that set aside the employee’s removal (July 2017) and dismissal (September 2018) and remanded the matter for a minor penalty. The employee, Sanjay Jagdishbhai Bhaty, had been ch

SHRI MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KARMACHARI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDversusARUNBHAI T SHAH

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Managing Director of Karmachari Cooperative Bank filed a Letters Patent Appeal after a delay of 48 days. The respondent filed an opposition, and the matter was brought before the Gujarat High Court as a civil application for condonation of delay. The applicant argued that the delay was not deliberate and sought con

SANDIPANI GLOBAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUSTversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Sandipani Global Education and Charitable Trust, filed a Special Civil Application seeking permission to withdraw its writ petition against Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Mayur Kishanchandani, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Nandish Y. Chudgar. The Cou

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICERversusKIRANKUMAR MALABHAI DAMOR

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The District Development Officer filed a special civil application seeking condonation of a 323‑day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The applicant explained the reasons for the delay, and the court examined whether the explanation satisfied the requirements for condonation under the Civil Procedure Code. The ju

BADHARBHAI PARVATBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

RAYSINGBHAI PUNABHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

PARSHOTTAMBHAI LAXMANBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

KAMANBHAI LAXMANBHAI HARIJANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

HIMMATSINH SURSINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

BAPUSINH SATESINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

AONE EXPLORATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ONGC)

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, AONE Exploration Private Ltd., challenged ONGC's rejection of its bid for chemical dosing pump services on the ground that it had not uploaded the required integrity pact. The petitioner argued that, as a registered vendor, it was exempt from re‑submitting the integrity pact, relying on ONGC's vendor re

KRUNAL THAKORBHAI TANDELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, Krunal Thakorbhai Tandel, challenged the selection of a candidate who held an Industrial Engineering degree for the post of Assistant Professor, arguing that a Gujarat Government Resolution (GR) that recognized his Mechanical Engineering degree as equivalent should not also grant preference to candidates

BADHARBHAI PARVATBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

RAYSINGBHAI PUNABHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

PARSHOTTAMBHAI LAXMANBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

KAMANBHAI LAXMANBHAI HARIJANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

HIMMATSINH SURSINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

BAPUSINH SATESINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

YOGI CONSTRUCTION CO. A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRMversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Gujarat High Court examined two writ petitions challenging the award of a Rs 122.97‑crore sewage‑treatment‑plant contract. R & B Infra Project Ltd. argued that its bid was unfairly rejected first for incomplete online upload, then on a technical ground that its MoU was on a Rs 100 stamp paper instead of Rs 300, and

GIRISHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SONIversusHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, an Additional District Judge, sought to quash a departmental inquiry and his suspension, alleging that the inquiry violated Ministry of Law and Justice guidelines requiring a complaint with an affidavit. The High Court examined whether the disciplinary authority could initiate an inquiry without such a

M/S R AND B INFRA PROJECT LIMITEDversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Gujarat High Court examined two writ petitions challenging the award of a Rs 122.97‑crore sewage‑treatment‑plant contract. R & B Infra Project Ltd. argued that its bid was unfairly rejected first for incomplete online upload, then on a technical ground that its MoU was on a Rs 100 stamp paper instead of Rs 300, and

PMP INFRATACK LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, PMP Infratack Ltd., challenged an order by Oil and Natural Gas Ltd (ONGC) that banned it from contracting, which was based on the termination of their contract. Both parties admitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the dispute was referred to arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal held tha

LILAVATI FOUNDATION THROUGH SIGNATORY SAURAV SHARMAversusTHE RECOVERY OFFICER

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The Lilavati Foundation, represented by its authorized signatory Vaibhav Dhariwal, filed multiple restoration applications before the Gujarat High Court. The foundation sought the Court's permission to withdraw these applications while retaining the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the future. The respond

STATE OF GUJARATversusR P CHATURVEDI

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The respondents, appointed as Class‑III Medical Officers in 1978‑80, became eligible for promotion to Class‑II after five years of service under the Gujarat Medical Service Class‑II Recruitment Rules, 1977. Despite meeting this eligibility, the State recruited 400 allopathic doctors between 1983‑93 and did not consider

JAYSHRIKUMARI ISHVARBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Jayshrikumari Ishvarbhai Patel applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak (Assistant Teacher) in Sociology under the Scheduled Tribe reservation. She was rejected because she held a B.A. in Sociology but only an M.A. in Education, not an M.A. in Sociology as required by the Government Higher Secondary Teacher, Class‑III,

CHIRAGKUMAR MOHANBHAI TANKversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Chiragkumar Mohanbhai Tank filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 388 of 2026) seeking to withdraw the appeal because the main writ petition was scheduled for final disposal on 23 June 2026. The appellant's counsel requested permission to withdraw, and the court entertained the request. The High Court dismissed the appeal

MANAV SANJAYBHAI BORADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal (C/LPA/389/2026) seeking permission to withdraw the appeal because the principal writ petition concerning a recruitment matter was scheduled for final disposal on 23 June 2026. The court considered the request and, without examining the merits of the underlying dispute, allow

KUVARBEN KAMALKHAN PARMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, Kuvarben Kamalkhan Parmar, filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 250 of 2026) against the State of Gujarat and others. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel indicated that she did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. No substantive factual or l

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERversusVADODARA MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The Municipal Commissioner and others filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 320 of 2026) against the Vadodara Municipal Employees Union. The appellants argued that the issues raised in their writ appeal were already decided in Letters Patent Appeal No. 294 of 2026. The Court examined the claim and found that the matter wa

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERversusMOHITE MANSINGRAO NARAYANRAO

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The Municipal Commissioner and others appealed against Mohite Mansingrao Narayanrao and others, claiming that the issues raised in their writ appeal were already decided in Letters Patent Appeal No. 294 of 2026. The Court examined the claim and found that the matter was indeed covered by the earlier decision. Consequen

NAGESH CORPORATIONversusGUJARAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Nagesh Corporation, filed a Special Civil Application seeking relief against the Gujarat Urban Development Department and others. The petitioner later instructed counsel to withdraw the writ petition, preferring to approach the respondent authority directly for redress of grievances. The petitioner’s co

SHANABHAI KONABHAI PARMARversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Shanabhai Konabhai Parmar filed an appeal against the Deputy Executive Engineer but failed to file it within the prescribed period. The applicant sought condonation of the delay, citing that similar delays had been condoned in companion appeals. The respondent, represented by an Additional Government Pleader, waived se

BHIKHABHAI JAVANBHAI MALIWADversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Bhikhabhai Javanbhai Maliwad filed an appeal against the Deputy Executive Engineer but failed to file it within the prescribed period. The applicant sought condonation of the delay, citing that similar delays had been condoned in companion appeals. The respondent, represented by an Additional Government Pleader, waived

VAGHABHAI HARIBHAI MALIWADversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Vaghbhai Haribhai Maliwad filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a order of the Deputy Executive Engineer. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, and the applicant argued that similar delays had been condoned in companion appeals. The respondent, represented by an

GANPATBHAI BHURABHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Kamlesh S. Kotai, failed to appear before the Gujarat High Court despite multiple adjournments. The respondents, including Mr. Utkarsh Sharma (AGP), Ms. Roopal R. Patel, and others, were present and ready to proceed. The court noted the petitioners' non‑appearance and, in accordance

STATE OF GUJARATversusLILABEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 179‑day delay in filing an appeal. The applicants were represented by Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vaishnavi Verma. The respondents were represented by counsel Mr. H.S. Munshaw, Mr. M.B. Parikh and Mr. H.J. Karathiya. The Court examined the exp

VASAIYA SUMITRABEN SAVSINGBHAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The High Court of Gujarat listed a large number of pending civil applications and appeals involving the parties Nirav Merambhai Dangar and Niharikaben @ Diku Harsurbhai Gagiya. An office note dated 19-02-2026 indicated that the required office objections had not been removed within the prescribed time. The court examin

VARSHA MUKESHBHAI KATARAversusTHE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner sought an order directing the State Election Commission to include her name in the electoral roll of Ward No. 4, Sabarmati, so she could vote in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation elections. Her name was absent from the Legislative Assembly constituency roll, which forms the basis for the municipal roll

BHAKTA KAVI NARSINH MEHTA UNIVERSITYversusAMITKUMAR LALITBHAI GHORICHA

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The employee, Amitkumar Ghoricha, was appointed as an Assistant Librarian on a contract in 2020, which was repeatedly extended until July 2025. He filed a Special Civil Application seeking regularisation, arguing that after five years of service he was entitled to be made a permanent employee. The Single Judge held the

SHASHANKKUMAR ANILKUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE ELECTION COMMISSION, GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Manishkumar Pravinbhai Padaya filed Special Civil Applications No. 5202/2026 and No. 5424/2026 against the State of Gujarat seeking the removal of certain office objections. The High Court of Gujarat, after hearing the matter, directed that all such objections be removed on or before 8 May 2026. The order further provi

DARJI AJAYKUMAR DAHYABHAIversusRAJDEVSINH GHAMBHIRSINH GOHIL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner filed a special civil application challenging the reservation allocation made by the Election Commission in a revised preliminary order dated 12 March 2026. The petitioner had filed objections to the original preliminary order on 3 and 5 March 2026 but made no objections or suggestions to the revised ord

ISHWARBHAI NARSENGBHAI PARMARversusTHE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Ishwarbhai Narsengbhai Parmar filed a writ petition challenging the State Election Commission's final notification reserving a District Panchayat seat in Vav‑Tharad for a Scheduled Caste woman. The petitioner argued that the earlier draft notification of 25‑Feb‑2026 already allocated the seat to a Scheduled Caste and a

RAFIK ADAM SUMRAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, accused No.2 in a multi‑state heroin smuggling case investigated by the NIA under the NDPS Act, has been in judicial custody for over 7½ years since his arrest in August 2018. The Sessions Court refused regular bail, prompting an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act. The High Court examined whether the

STATE OF GUJARATversusJATIN PREMESH PANDYA

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The State of Gujarat filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 751 of 2016) and a connected civil application for a stay. The respondent, Jatin Premesh Pandya, had died during the COVID pandemic, but the exact date of death was unknown. The appellant argued that the legal heirs had not been brought on record within the prescr

SMIT @SUMIT SATISHBHAI DARJI THRO RABARI KRISHNA KHODABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, Smit@Sumit Satishbhai Darji, was preventively detained on 1 February 2026 under Section 2(g) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as an "immoral traffic offender" and lodged a petition challenging the order. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority had no material show

TIRATH S/O LALABAHADUR MAURYA THROUGH NEERAJ LALBAHADUR MAURYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Tirath Lalbahadur Maurya filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a detention order dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Surat Police Commissioner under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, on the ground that he was a "bootlegger". The petitioner argued that no material was

BHIKHABHAI ZALABHAI BHARWAD THRO. DINESHBHAI ZALABHAI BHARWADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Bhikhabhai Zalabhai Bharwad was preventively detained on 13‑02‑2026 under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, alleged to be a "dangerous person" based on three criminal cases. He challenged the detention, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public order and that th

STATE OF GUJARATversusBAHUDA VRUNDAVAN SHAHU

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal of Bahuda Vrundavan Shahu & others, seeking service of bailable warrants against respondents No.1 to 3. The Court granted the State a three‑week period to furnish the correct addresses for service of the warrants. It clarified that failure to provide the correct addre

MR. DHANRAJ SAVAIRAM JAT THROUGH MR. MOHANLAL SAVAIRAM JATversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Mr. Dhanraj Savairam Raj was detained as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 by a police order dated 17‑02‑2026. He challenged the detention through a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public health, or

ARJUN S/O SANTOSH DIVARE THROUGH HIS MOTHER REKHA SANTOSH DIVAREversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Arjun, detained as a "dangerous person" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, challenged the preventive detention order dated 10‑01‑2026. The petitioner argued that no material was placed before the authority to show that his conduct disturbed public order, and that the order was passed mech

RAJ HARISH THAKOR THRO. RAJA HARISH THAKORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Raj Harish Thakor, detained as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, challenged the detention order dated 02‑02‑2026 before the Gujarat High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that no material showed any disturbance to public health, or

PRATIK CHIMANBHAI VASAVAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

Pratik Chimanbhai Vasava filed a special criminal application seeking a writ of habeas corpus to compel the State of Gujarat to produce his wife, the alleged corpus, before the court. The respondents submitted a statement from the wife indicating that she had voluntarily left to her uncle's residence and subsequently r

YASH @SANJAYBHAI ISHWARBHAI SANKABHAI DESAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Yash @ Sanjaybhai Ishwarbhai Sankabhai Desai was preventively detained on 23 January 2026 by the District Magistrate, Patan under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "dangerous person". He filed a petition challenging the order, arguing that no material was placed before the

CHAMPABEN PRAVINBHAI JADAV THRU. ASHISH NARESHBHAI KHEMSURYAversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Champaben Pravinbhai Jadav was preventively detained on 21 January 2026 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". She challenged the detention through a petition filed by her nephew, arguing that the detaining authority had no material showing any disturbance to

FIROZ @ SALIM HASAMBHAI SHAIKH THROUGH ZEBABANU FIROZBHAI SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Firoz @ Salim Hasambhai Shaikh was preventively detained on 13 January 2026 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his daughter, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public order and that t

ASHOKKUMAR LOKUMAL LALVANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner, Ashokkum... Lalvani, challenged a preventive detention order dated 24‑08‑2023 issued by the Commissioner of Police under the 1985 Act, alleging that his alleged bootlegging offences under the Prohibition Act did not threaten public order. The State argued that the petitioner was a habitual offender whos

ARJUN@SUNNY PUNAMBHAI MARVADI THRO SUNITA ARJUN MARWADIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Arjun @ Sunny Punambhai Marvadi was preventively detained on 15 January 2026 by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his wife, arguing that no material was placed before the authorit

KAIF @ KALLU S/O SAMIRULLA ANSARI THROUGH ANSARI MOHAMAD SAHAJADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Kaif @ Kallu was preventively detained on 30-12-2025 as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The detainee, through his brother, challenged the order alleging no material showed any disturbance to public order and that the order was passed mechanically. T

IRFAN @ NADI S/O RAMJAN SHAIKH THROUGH BILKISBANU RAMZAN SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Irfan @ Nadi was detained on 31‑12‑2025 by the Surat Police Commissioner under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "dangerous person". He filed a petition through his mother challenging the legality of the detention, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public o

ANILBHAI JETHABHAI PANGAD THRO KETANBHAI JETHABHAI PANGADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Anilbhai Jethabhai Pangad was preventively detained on 31‑12‑2025 by the District Magistrate of Bhavnagar under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, on the ground that his boot‑legging activities threatened public order. He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his

SANJAYBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA MADIYARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Sanjaybhai Rameshchandra Madiyar, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his daughter Hiral Madiyar was illegally confined by a man named Karan (the fourth respondent). The court examined affidavits and an investigation report from the Anti‑Human Trafficking Unit, which showed that the daughter ha

MER VISHALBHAI MUKESHBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Mer Vishalbhai Mukeshbhai filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his live‑in partner, 19‑year‑old Jadav Rinaben Kanubhai, had been illegally detained by her parents. The petitioner asserted that both parties, being adults, have a constitutional right to cohabit voluntarily. The corpus testified that she entered t

JUBERBEG S/O HUSENBEG MAHETAR THROUGH PRAVINBI HUSEN BEGversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The petitioner, Juberbeg, filed a special criminal application challenging his detention. While the petition was pending, the Board revoked the order of detention that formed the basis of the petition. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the revocation rendered the petition moot. The Court examined whether the petitio

STATE OF GUJARATversusMANOJKUMAR @ BHATHI BHAGVANBHAI @ BHAGUBHAI PADHIYAR

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 256‑day delay in filing its criminal appeal against Manoj Kumar @ Bhathi Bhagvanbhai @ Bhagubhai Padhiar. The appellant argued that the delay was justified and pleaded for relief. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the

KARMAN RAIYABHAI KODIYATARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

31-NOTICE DISCHARGED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Karman Raiyabhai Kodiatar, filed a special criminal application seeking relief, presumably to prevent his detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) Act. The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that there was no current proposal to invoke the PASA Act or detain the petit

LAKHMAN @ MALIK JIVABHAI MARUversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

31-NOTICE DISCHARGED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Lakhman @ Malik Jivabhai Maru, filed a special criminal application seeking a direction that the State invoke the Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities (PASA) Act and detain him. The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the Court that there was no proposal to invoke the PASA Act against the petitioner.

ILABA W/O RAJENDRASINH SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

31-NOTICE DISCHARGED @ ADM.STAGE

Ilaba, the petitioner, filed a Special Criminal Application before the Gujarat High Court seeking relief against detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) Act. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, informed the Court that there was no current proposal to invoke the PASA Act o

PARBAR @ PABO RAJUBHAI KODIYATARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

31-NOTICE DISCHARGED @ ADM.STAGE

Parbar @ Pabo Rajubhai Kodiyatar filed a special criminal application seeking the court's direction to invoke the provisions of the PASA Act and order his detention. The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that there was no current proposal to invoke the PASA Act against the petitioner. The court considered

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