Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11922/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11922 of 2005
==============================================================
DHARMENDRA
AMRUTLAL VERMA & 5 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
GANDHINAGAR & 1 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HR PRAJAPATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6.
Mr P R Abichandani, Asstt.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for
Respondent(s) :
2,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA
Date
: 05/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA)
Pursuant
to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated
13.5.2005, the petitioners have made representation to respondent
no.1-Collector, Gandhinagar for allotment of alternative sites to
carry on their business. It is stated by Mr H R Prajapati, learned
Advocate for the petitioners that the representation has already
been made and it is pending for final disposal. When the alternative
remedy by way of representation to respondent no.1 has
been availed and when the same is under active consideration of the
competent authority, it is not for us to go into the merits of the
case and decide the same. Respondent no.1 is competent to take
decision in this behalf after taking into consideration various
circumstances including the points that may be put forth by the
petitioners. Even in case the decision is taken against the
petitioners, there is adequate remedy available by way of revision
before the State Government to challenge the decision of respondent
no.1. In view of the same, there is no need for us to decide this
petition on its merits and it is required to be rejected.
2. At
this stage, it is submitted by Mr Prajapati, learned Advocate for the
petitioners that this Court may direct respondent no.1 to observe
status-quo till the decision is taken on the representation. When
the issue is pending before respondent no.1, it is not desirable for
us to pass any order in this behalf. If need be, the petitioners can
make necessary application for grant of stay or for temporary
injunction to respondent no.1. If any such application is made, it
would be desirable that respondent no.1 decides the same keeping
in view the fact that the petitioners have been doing business on
the land in question since long and during the pendency of the
petition before this court they were protected.
3. In
view of this, Mr Prajapati seeks permission to withdraw this
petition. Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of as
withdrawn. Notice discharged.
[Kshitij
R Vyas, J.]
[Akshay
H Mehta, J.]
msp
Top