Narendra vs Bardoli on 8 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Narendra vs Bardoli on 8 July, 2008
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honble Smt. Kumari,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/6165/2008	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6165 of 2008
 

with
 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7029 of 2008
 

with
 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8601 of 2008
 

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

NARENDRA
BALUBHAI RAJPUT – Petitioner(s)

Versus

BARDOLI
NAGAR PALIKA & 1 – Respondent(s)

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

Appearance
:

MR
GT DAYANI for
Petitioner.

MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent : 1,

MS REETA
CHANDARANA, AGP, for Respondent
No.2.

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

CORAM
:

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE

and

HON’BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI

Date
: 08/07/2008

ORAL
COMMON ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

The
petitioners, in these petitions, are aggrieved by the notices issued
by respondent No.1- Bardoli Nagarpalika requiring them to vacate the
shops within ten days, which were constructed by the petitioners
pursuant to the land being allotted to them for a large number of
years. The ground, on which the action by the Nagarpalika is taken,
was widening of the road; whereas the case of the petitioners is
that it is a line-alignment on the bank of river Mindoda and,
therefore, widening is not required.

2. It
transpires that the petitioners had made representation to the
Nagarpalika earlier. This Court also kept it open to the petitioners
to make a representation by its earlier order. It also transpires
that a Resolution has been passed by Bardoli Nagarpalika on
25.4.2008, whereunder the notices have been withdrawn. It also
appears that the Nagarpalika would try to work out for an alternative
place after discussing the issue with the cabin-holders ?
petitioners and till then, no action would be taken. There is no
dispute on the above factual aspects.

3.
In light of the above development, in our view, extraordinary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not required to be
exercised. The petitions stand disposed of as having become
infructuous. Notice is discharged in each petition. No costs.

[A.L.DAVE,J.] [SMT.ABHILASHA
KUMARI,J.]

   

Top

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *