Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9874/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9874 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9893 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9924 of 2010
======================================
KISHORE
P TRASADIYA & 32 - Petitioners
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR S.I.NANAVATI WITH MS BHAVINI
C SHUKLA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 33.MR PARESH M GAJJAR for
Petitioner(s) : 3,
MR S.N.SHELAT WITH MR R.M.CHHAYA for Respondent
No.1.
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 23/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the respective petitioners have prayed for the following main
reliefs:
14.[A] Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in
the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 as
well as the impugned notice dated 14.10.2009, passed and issued by
the Respondents and further be pleased to permanently restrain the
Respondents, their agents, servants, officers and/or representatives
from demolishing the premises of the petitioners;
In
the alternative
[B] Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in
the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction
commanding the Respondents herein to decide the representation dated
03.10.2009, 14.10.2009 and 08.07.2010 at the earliest in accordance
with law.
2. After
the matter was argued for some time, Mr.S.I.Nanavati, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners, under the
instructions received from the respective petitioners, has requested
to permit the petitioners to withdraw the present petitions and grant
them time upto 29/08/2010 to remove the unauthorized construction in
question, which are pointed out in the Notice under Section 260 of
the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, in presence of the
Officer of the respondent-Corporation so that there is no further
damage to the goods and materials lying in the premises in question.
It
is further stated by Shri Nanavati that after demolishing all the
unauthorised construction in question, the respective petitioners
propose to submit appropriate representation before the
respondent-Corporation to consider their request with respect to use
of the properties in question, as according to them, their
applications to regularise their unauthorized construction under the
Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act is still
pending and for which, necessary impact fees is already paid by the
respective petitioners much prior to the relevant date.
3. Mr.S.N.Shelat,
learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.R.M.Chhaya, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation has
submitted that there is no question of considering the
representations of the respective petitioners, as according to the
Corporation, no further decision is required to be taken on the
applications submitted by the respective petitioners and/or by the
Builders to regularise their unauthorized construction under the
Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act and the same
was already conveyed by issuing Notice under Section 260 of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act.
Be
that it may, undertakings filed by the respective petitioners are
directed to be taken on record and the respective petitioners are
hereby granted time upto 29/08/2010 to remove all the unauthorized
construction in question as pointed out in the Notices under Section
260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, in presence
of the Officer of the Corporation (so as to avoid any allegations and
counter allegations).
4. In
view of the above and considering the request made by
Mr.S.I.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respective petitioners, all these petitions are dismissed as
withdrawn without expressing any opinion with respect to
entertainability and/or maintainability of the representations to be
made by the respective petitioners. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top