Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/571220/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5712 of 2008
=========================================================
DEVYANIBEN
THAKORLAL SHAH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NILESH M SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RITESH
K. SONI FOR M/S RJ RAWAL ASSOC. for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS
SHIVYA A DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 23/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
1. This
petition was filed primarily challenging bills of the premises
bearing survey No. 342/4/1/1 from the year 1997-98 to 2006-07 in
relation to Old Tenement No.6961-0411-00-0103-R and New Tenement
No.0515-17-0481-0004-S. It appears that the petitioner had raised
the same challenge vide Special Civil Application No. 4409 of 2006.
Vide order dated 26.12.2006 the Court recorded the statement made by
the learned Advocate for the respondent Corporation in the following
terms :
3. On service of notice,
Mr.Maulin Raval, learned Counsel appears for the respondents.
Mr.Maulin Raval, learned Counsel for the respondents states at the
Bar that he had addressed a letter dated December 16, 2006 to Deputy
Municipal Commissioner (West Zone), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad, pointing
out the contention of the petitioner that the office of an advocate
should not be considered as commercial property and that in view of
the judgment of the Supreme Court, appropriate decision should be
taken. A copy of the letter is produced for perusal of the Court. The
same is ordered to be taken on the record of the case .
2.
In light of the said statement the petitioner was permitted to
withdraw the petition with a direction to the respondent Corporation
to treat the petition as representation of the petitioner. Pursuant
thereto the impugned bills have been issued. At the time of hearing
on 15.10.2008 the grievance was made on behalf the petitioner that,
order of assessment was never served on the petitioner and only
bills were served. Hence, the following order dated 15.10.2008 came
to be made :
Learned Advocate appearing
on behalf of respondent Municipal Corporation states that the
Municipal Corporation shall serve the order of assessment on the
petitioner within a period of a week from today. To be listed on
23.10.2008 .
3. Today
learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner has
been served with an order of assessment and the petitioner intends to
challenge the same in accordance with law. The learned Advocate for
the petitioner, in the circumstances, seeks permission to withdraw
the petition so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the order
of assessment in accordance with law. Permission to withdraw the
petition is granted. The petition stands rejected as withdrawn.
Notice discharged.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(D.A.Mehta,
J.) (Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
M.M.BHATT
Top