Gujarat High Court High Court

Mohammadbhai vs Collector on 2 May, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Mohammadbhai vs Collector on 2 May, 2011
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/5808/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5808 of 2011
 

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


 

MOHAMMADBHAI
NASIRBHAI SARSIYA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

COLLECTOR
- BANASKANTHA & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=======================================================
Appearance : 
MR
VC VAGHELA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. 
MR HIMANSHU PATEL AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
======================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 02/05/2011
 

ORAL
ORDER

The
present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 14,
19
and 226 of the Constitution
of India as well as under the provisions of the
Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 for the prayer inter alia that
appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the
respondent no.3 to immediately grant permission for construction of
the houses in the plots situated in Village : Tokaria, District :
Banaskantha.

However,
as could be seen from the order produced at Annexure-G as well as
other Annexures, Appeal before the Appellate Committee under Section
242 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 was decided and the matter
has been remanded. Therefore, till it is remanded and decided again,
merely because the decision is awaited, such petition cannot be
entertained on the ground of malafide as alleged.

Learned
counsel, Mr.Vaghela has stated that it is the Sarpanch, who has
issued the instruction without any basis or foundation for such
allegations.

In
the circumstances, the present petition cannot be entertained as
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India cannot be exercised as it does not
call for exercise of such discretion.

Therefore,
the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed in limine.

(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)

/patil

   

Top