Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6227/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6227 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
VINODBHAI
MULJIBHAI BAROT & 3 - Petitioners
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondents
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
JAYESH M PATEL for Petitioners : 1 - 4.
MR. H.K. PATEL, LD. AGP
for Respondent: 1,
MR UM SHASTRI for Respondents : 2 - 4.
None
for Respondent: 5,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 14/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19/4/2011 passed
by District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Godhra,
Respondent no.2 herein above, ordering penalty as mentioned in the
said order, holding that the land in question was not used for the
purpose for which it was permitted to be used. Learned advocate for
the petitioners have invited this Court’s attention to the order
dated 14/8/2006 wherein petitioners were specifically permitted to
carry out the activities of manufacturing bricks. The said order
contains conditions, where condition no. 7 in terms provides that
the said permission is for five years, and would therefore inure
till 31/7/2010. Thus, mentioning of 31/7/2010 was due to
inadvertence on the part of the concerned as five years period would
over by 31/7/2011 and hence petitioners were well within their right
to continue their activities of brick manufacturing. Learned
advocate Shri Shastri appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 on
advance copy, and who has filed Vakalatnama, has at the first
instance when the matter was listed before this Court, the Court was
of the view that the matter being in narrow compass let the advocate
who is appearing for the respondents be served with advance copy and
thus Shri Shastri appears for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. Hence
Rule. Rule is waived by learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Shri
Shastri for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. With the
consent of learned advocates for the parties, rule is fixed
forthwith.
Learned
advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 could not
controvert in any manner the contention raised by the petitioners
that the permission as such would inure till 31/7/2011 and he
submitted, therefore, the Court may pass appropriate order.
The
order is otherwise also assailed on the ground of non compliance
with principle of natural justice. In view of this, the order
impugned is required to be quashed and set aside. However, quashing
of this order would not be construed in any manner as to entitling
the petitioners to seek further extension, if it is not admissible
under the law. In case, if it is admissible, and in case any such
extension application is made, it goes without saying that the same
will have to be decided by the competent authority on its own merits
without being influenced by this order at all. With this
observation,the petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute to
the above extent. No order as to costs.
[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]
/vgn
Top