Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajendraprasad vs Collector on 26 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rajendraprasad vs Collector on 26 March, 2010
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3447/2010	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3447 of 2010
 

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


 

RAJENDRAPRASAD
GUPTA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

COLLECTOR
VALSAD & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
ADIL R MIRZA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/03/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

The
petitioner has sought to challenge order dated 19.01.2009 of the
Deputy Secretary of Urban Development and Urban Housing Department,
whereby revision application of the petitioner was rejected. The
petitioner was found to have been granted additional area of 14 x 14
ft., adjoining the shop alloted to the petitioner, on payment of
deposit and monthly rent. The procedure carried out by the
municipality was found to be irregular and, hence, the Collector, by
order dated 29.09.2009, suspended the Resolution No. 935 dated
04.01.2008 and Resolution No. 306 dated 08.01.2008, in exercise of
his powers under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 25
of 2008 which was also dismissed by the impugned order wherein it is
noted that the allotment of additional premises to the petitioner was
highly irregular, in violation of the standing instructions of the
Government and necessary verifications were not made.
In absence of the instructions and guidelines dated 09.05.1988 of the
Government, it could not be argued for the petitioner that the
instructions of the State Government were not violated. Under such
circumstances, no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned
orders of the competent authority which are admittedly made in the
exercise of powers conferred upon them and on the basis of the facts
and material placed before such authority. Therefore, the petition
is summarily dismissed.

[D.H.WAGHELA,
J.]

Jyoti

   

Top