Gujarat High Court High Court

Sakib vs Municipal on 21 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Sakib vs Municipal on 21 January, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4149/2009	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

 


 

 


 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4149 of 2009
 

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


 

SAKIB
AHMED ABDUL AHMED - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF CITY OF SURAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR DILIP L
KANOJIYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR
MRUGEN K PUROHIT for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

                              and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR. JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/01/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per :

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1. By
this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondents not to demand and/or recover arrears as mentioned in the
bills for assessment years 2000-01 up to 2008-09 and other
consequential reliefs.

2. On
23rd July, 2010, this Court had passed an order in the
following terms:-

“The
main grievance voiced by learned Advocate for the petitioner is that
earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.44 of 2002 wherein a
statement had been made on behalf of respondent Corporation that
demand against the petitioner was being made on the basis of the rate
of assessment at Rs.3,600/- gross rateable value. However, for the
same period arrears are sought to be recovered from the petitioner at
Rs.4,800/- gross rateable value.

Notice
returnable on 20.08.2010.”

3. Today,
Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the respondents states
before the Court that the petitioner may file a representation before
the respondents in relation to the grievance voiced in the present
petition and the same shall be considered in accordance with law
after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

4. In
the light of the aforesaid statement, Mr. Dilip Kanojiya, learned
advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to
withdraw the petition with a view to make a representation before the
respondents. He, has, however requested that some time frame be
specified within which the representation may be decided.

5. The
request appears to be reasonable. In the circumstances, it is
directed that the petitioner shall make a representation to the
respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from today. Upon
receipt of such representation, the respondent No.1 shall decide the
same within a period of one month thereafter, after giving the
petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petition is
accordingly disposed of as withdrawn in the aforesaid terms. Notice
is discharged.

(
Harsha Devani, J. )

(
H.B. Antani, J. )

hki

   

Top