Gujarat High Court High Court

Divyaben vs By on 7 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Divyaben vs By on 7 May, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/104/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 104 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 652 of 2009
 

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


 

DIVYABEN
KIRITBHAI MASURIYA & 3 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

JAMNAGAR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 20 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR TUSHAR
MEHTA with MR VIRAL K SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1
- 4. 
MR JR NANAVATI for Opponent(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) :
2, 
MR PC KAVINA for MR HRIDAY BUCH for Opponent(s) : 3 - 20. 
-
for Opponent(s) : 0.0.0
 
========================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

	
       Date : 07/05/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)

1. By
way of this application, the applicants have prayed for the following
reliefs :-

“[A]
Be pleased to admit and allow this Misc. Civil Application;

[B]
Be pleased to revive the Special Civil Application No. 652/09 and
restore it on file and be pleased to consider the prayed made in
paragraph 6(D) of the aforesaid petition on merits;

[BB]
Be pleased to condone 199 days delay.

[C]
…..”

2. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Looking to the facts of the case, no case is made out to
recall the order. It is however, clarified that it will be open for
the applicants to challenge the action or inaction on the part of the
respondent-Corporation for the alleged illegal construction/ illegal
construction, which is found by the respondent-Corporation.

3. It
is, however, made clear that this Court had earlier examined the
matter and the same was considered in the main petition. However,
after any directions are issued by this Court, the action or omission
is a fresh cause of action.

3. In
view of the above, the application stands disposed of.

[K.S.

JHAVERI, J.]

[Z.K.

SAIYED, J.]

/phalguni/

   

Top