Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11143/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11143 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11732 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10926 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11934 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10919 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10712 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10920 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10918 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9037 of 2009
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9040 of 2009
=========================================================
MUKESHBHAI
CHINUBHAI SHAH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YV VAGHELA, MR JK SHAH, MR SHALIN MEHTA
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioners herein have prayed to quash and set aside the
communications/circulars dated 03.10.2009, 01.08.2009, 19/23.09.2009,
21.08.2009 & 28.07.2009 whereby the petitioners were directed to
handover the possession of the stalls in question.
2. The
petitioners earn their livelihood by running sugarcane juice and
fruit stalls under the licence granted by the Corporation. However,
by general circulars/communications dated 03.10.2009, 01.08.2009,
19/23.09.2009, 21.08.2009 & 28.07.2009, the petitioners were
informed to vacate the stalls. Being aggrieved by the said
circulars/communications, the present petitions have been preferred.
3. Learned
advocates appearing for the petitioners have submitted that the
licences of the petitioners were renewed from time to time and the
petitioners were also regularly making payment of the licence fee.
The general circulars/communications called for discontinuation of
these stalls on the ground that general cleanliness and hygiene was
not being maintained by them.
3.1 Learned
advocates for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are
willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the
respondent corporation so as to ensure smooth functioning of their
stalls and their livelihood in turn.
4. This
court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
papers on record. This court while granting ad-interim relief had
reserved liberty in favour of the respondent corporation to take
necessary action in the event it finds that the person concerned is
not maintaining hygienic standards or required cleanliness around his
place of business. Keeping in mind the renewal clause which is
binding upon the parties, this court is of the view that the
petitioners’ case may be considered by the respondent corporation on
their each filing an undertaking as regards to the abiding of rules
and regulations as laid down by the respondent corporation. In such
an event, the following order is passed:
The
petitioners shall file an undertaking alongwith the renewal
application within a period of fifteen days from today stating
therein that they shall abide by the rules of the corporation.
The
respondent corporation being a State shall accept the renewal
application and the undertaking and consider the application as per
the renewal terms of the agreement.
It
is made clear that in case of any default by the petitioners, it
shall be open to the respondent corporation to refuse the renewal by
way of passing a reasoned order.
If
any new policy of the respondent corporation comes into operation,
the same shall be made applicable on the subsequent renewals which
is after the expiry of the present renewal.
It
is also clarified that if the renewal application alongwith the
undertaking is not filed within 15 days, no rights shall be created
in favour of the petitioners.
Needless
to say, the petitioners shall maintain hygienic standards and
required cleanliness around their places of business in public
interest.
It
is hoped that the respondent corporation being a State shall not
compel other contractors to approach this court and shall accept
this order as a policy for other similarly situated parties.
5. With
the above directions, these petitions are disposed of. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top