Gujarat High Court High Court

Harshadbhai vs Collector on 16 June, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Harshadbhai vs Collector on 16 June, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/6547/2010	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6547 of 2010
 

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


 

HARSHADBHAI
NATWARLAL PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

COLLECTOR,
AHMEDABAD DISTRICT & 6 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
SUDHANSHU S PATEL for the Petitioner. 
Mr.A.J.Desai, Assistant
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent no.1. 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 7. 
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent no.3. 
MR MG
NAGARKAR for Respondent no.4. 
MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for Respondent
nos. 6 and 7. 
========================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/06/2010 

 

 
 
					ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

The
petitioner, a member of Taluka Panchayat has preferred this public
interest litigation for demolition of a daily parlour and a public
urinal constructed on block no. 369 of village Bopal, Ta: Dascroi,
Dist: Ahmedabad. It is stated that dairy parlour and public urinal
have been constructed by the Village Panchayat on Gauchar land,
thereby it goes against public interest.

2. We
have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. A.J.Desai for the
State, learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munsha for respondent no. 3, learned
advocate Mr. M.G.Nagarkar for respondent no. 4 and learned advocate
Mr. H.S.Tolia for respondent nos. 6 and 7. In the present case, as
we find that the dairy parlour and public urinal have been
constructed in public interest, this Court is not inclined to grant
the relief as sought for in this case as dairy parlour and public
urinal are also required and they will not come in the way of the
public if they remain in one side of the park. In absence of any
merit, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,C.J.)

(Akil
Kureshi,J)

***vcdarji

   

Top