Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/471020/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4710 of 2008
=================================================
RANJANBEN
HASMUKHBHAI PATEL WD/O MOHANBHAI PATEL THRO POA & 19 -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR SP MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 20.
Ms.BHAVIKA KOTECHA, ASST GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
4,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 14/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
The
present petition is the second round of litigation of the
petitioners. Earlier, the petitioners were before this Court by way
of Special Civil Application No.2160 of 2008, which was disposed of
by this Court by an order dated 5th February 2008. The
relevant part of the order reads as under:
5.
This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that
if the petitioners make a representation to the respondents No.2 and
3 and also to Essar Steel Limited within one week from today, the
respondents shall not remove the petitioners’ cabins till 15th
March, 2008 in order to enable the petitioners to pursue their
representations with Essar Steel Limited and the above-named
authorities.
Direct service is
permitted.
2. An affidavit is
filed by one Mr.Dharmesh K. Patel, Mamlatdar, Chorasi, wherein in
para 4(g) it is stated as under:
That pursuant to
the order dated 05.02.2008, passed by this Hon’ble Court, all the
respondents had considered the representation made by the
petitioners. It is submitted that on 12.02.2008 the management of
Essar Steel Ltd. had informed the petitioners that it could not give
alternative accommodation in the premises of the said company. Even
the Deputy Executive Engineer, National Highway Authority had by its
letter dated 10.03.2008 informed the petitioners that the said matter
was outside the purview of its authority. Not only that, but the
office of the Collector, Surat, had also initiated (sic.) the
petitioners, that in absence of any policy of the state Govt to give
alternative accommodation to the encroachers, who had placed their
cabins in Highway margin, his office also could not give alternative
accommodation. Accordingly, representation dated 25.02.2008 was
rejected. Annexed hereto and collectively marked Annexure R-III are
the intimations rejecting representation made to the Essar Steel
Ltd., National Highway Authority & Collector, Surat
respectively.
3. Learned advocate
Mr.S.P. Majmudar submitted that the representation made by the
petitioners is not rejected by the authorities in so many words by
passing any specific order and therefore, the respondents be
restrained from removing the cabins of the petitioners. The authority
has placed on record communications dated 28th November
2006, 22nd February 2007, and 12th March 2008.
The communication dated 12th March 2008 is
from Essar Steel
Limited addressed to petitioner no.1. The case of the petitioners is
that the petitioners are catering to the needs of the employees of
Messrs Essar Steel Limited. This is controverted by respondent no.4.
4. Mr.Sanjay
Agarwalla, Son of Mr.Jugalkishore Agarwalla, Legal Officer with
respondent no.4-Messrs Essar Steel Limited has also filed an
affidavit and has stated as under:
5. I state that
this Hon’ble Court in the said order has observed that if the
petitioners make a representation to the management of Essar Steel
Ltd respondent no.4 herein and also Deputy Executive Engineer,
NHAI, Sub-divisioin, Bardoli and Collector, Surat, so that respondent
no.4 and above named authorities can look into the matter and find
out a viable solution to the problem being faced by the petitioners
on account of removal of this cabins.
Messrs Essar Steel
Limited has rejected the representation of the petitioners by its
communication dated 12th March 2008.
5. At this juncture,
the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that while issuing
notice on 14th March 2008 in the present petition, the
Court restrained the respondents from removing the petitioners’ cabin
till the returnable date, i.e. 15th April 2008. The
learned advocate submitted that interim relief is continuing till
date and same can be continued for some reasonable time. Having
found no substance in the petition, the request cannot be acceded to
and the same is declined.
6. The petition having
found no substance is not entertained and the same is dismissed.
Notice is discharged. Interim relief is vacated.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.)
(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.)
karim
Top