Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    SANGITABEN W/O MANISHKUMAR PATEL v. UNION OF INDIA

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10719 of 2016

    ========================================================== SANGITABEN W/O MANISHKUMAR PATEL....Petitioner(s) Versus

    UNION OF INDIA & 1....Respondent(s)

    ========================================================== Appearance:

    MR Y J PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KSHITIJ AMIN, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2

    ==========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

    Date : 14/12/2016

    ORAL ORDER

    1. Heard Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

    2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth as prayed for in Paragraph 13(A) of the petition. It appears that the petitioner has filed an application on 1.6.2016 which is pending for consideration.

    3. Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned Central Government

    Page 1 of 2

    Counsel states that if the representation is filed by the petitioner along with the true copies of the documents, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

    4. In view of the above, the respondent authorities shall consider the representation if any filed by the petitioner along with all necessary and authenticated documents preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of such filing.

    5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.

    (R.M.CHHAYA, J.)

    mrp

    Page 2 of 2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    SANGITABEN W/O MANISHKUMAR PATEL v. UNION OF INDIA
    (Dec 14, 2016)