{"id":157645,"date":"2000-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000"},"modified":"2017-11-03T04:01:59","modified_gmt":"2017-11-02T22:31:59","slug":"federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000","title":{"rendered":"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: R Abichandani<\/div>\n
Bench: R Abichandani, D Mehta<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 R.K. Abichandani, J. <\/p>\n
       1. The petitioners seek to prosecute  this  petition
\n      in  a  representative capacity for framing of a Scheme, a
\n      draft  of  which  is  placed  at  Annexure  “R”  to  this
\n      petition,   for   the  purpose  of  granting  relief  and
\n      rehabilitation  to  the  occupiers  of  the  illegal  and
\n      unauthorised constructions made on C.G Road, Off C.G Road
\n      and  surrounding  areas, with such alterations, additions
\n      and modifications as may be ordered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
       2. The   petitioner   No.1   is  a  recently  formed
\n      Federation,  which  is  admittedly   not   a   registered
\n      Association and  the petitioners Nos.  2 to 9 are said to
\n      be it’s office bearers, who are also the occupiers of the
\n      commercial complexes on the C.G Road.  Amongst the  other
\n      prayers sought in the petition are for, appointment of an
\n      enquiry    commission   as   regards   the   unauthorised
\n      constructions and for fixing the responsibilities of  the
\n      Municipal  officers  and  ascertaining the role played by
\n      the builders and such  officers,  taking  action  against
\n      such  officers  and  builders,  creating  fund by issuing
\n      directions to deposit for the purpose of carrying out the
\n      scheme, taking disciplinary  action  against  architects,
\n      engineers   concerned  concerned  with  the  unauthorised
\n      illegal constructions including  prosecuting  them  under
\n      the  law  and restraining the respondent Corporation from
\n      taking  any  coercive  measures  and\/or  demolishing  the
\n      illegal or unauthorised constructions on C.G Road and Off
\n      C.G Road  and  the  surrounding  areas.    Alongwith  the
\n      petition annexed at Annexure  “A”  is  the  list  of  the
\n      existing  buildings  on  C.G  Road  of which 35 are shown
\n      under Part-I and  38  under  Part-II.    The  list  of  7
\n      buildings  under  construction  is at Annexure “B” to the
\n      petition.  Then there is a list at Annexure  “G”  to  the
\n      petition  giving particulars of buildings situated at C.G
\n      Road, of which the  occupiers  are  the  members  of  the
\n      petitioner Federation.      In   this  list  73  building
\n      complexes are enumerated.\n<\/p>\n
       2.1 In  paragraph  12  of  the petition, it is stated
\n      that one Consumer Protection Council and others had filed
\n      Special Civil Application No.  6794 of 1992,  inter-alia,
\n      pointing out the illegalities in the construction and use
\n      of  these  complexes  and  praying  for a relief that the
\n      Ahmedabad  Municipal  Corporation,  the   Town   Planning
\n      Officer  and  the  State  of  Gujarat be directed to take
\n      action  against  all  builders,  organisers,   promoters,
\n      societies, companies, associations having any building or
\n      premises on C.G Road in particular and in any other place
\n      in  Ahmedabad  in  general,  to  see  that  they  use the
\n      premises  in  accordance  with  building  use  permission
\n      granted  to  them  and  in  accordance  with the building
\n      bye-laws,  TP  Scheme  and  the   regulations   regarding
\n      development  plan  and  in  particular  regulations  with
\n      regard to zoning  (CG  Road  being  residential)  and  if
\n      necessary to pull down the unauthorised constructions.  A
\n      copy of that petition has been annexed at Annexure “M” to
\n      the present  petition.    It will be seen from the prayer
\n      clause 11(A)(1) thereof that a  relief  was  also  sought
\n      against the  occupiers of such buildings.  Admittedly the
\n      occupiers  were  not  made  party  respondents  in   that
\n      petition.  The  said  Special Civil Application No.  6794
\n      of 1992 alongwith Special Civil Application No.  6893\/92,
\n      which  was  filed  by  the  Ahmedabad   Premises   Users’
\n      Association and others were heard together and a Division
\n      Bench of this Court (Coram:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Patel
\n      and Hon’ble  Mr. Justice  P.B.    Majmudar), by a detailed
\n      judgement dated 4th October, 2000,  allowed  the  Special
\n      Civil Application No.  6794\/92 in terms of the directions
\n      given and  rejected  the  other petition.  The Court also
\n      directed the  Registry  to  notify  the  matter  on  13th
\n      October,  2000  for compliance with the directions issued
\n      therein.  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B. Majmudar while fully
\n      concurring with the views expressed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
\n      B.C.Patel, added His Lordship’s views in so far as change
\n      of user from residence to commerce use was concerned  and
\n      observed  that  by  virtue  of the resolutions which have
\n      been set aside because of the inaction on the part of the
\n      Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, an irreversible position
\n      has been created and some innocent  occupiers  have  been
\n      duped.    It   was  observed  that  however,  since  some
\n      occupants have already filed Suits and obtained stay,  it
\n      can be  said  that  they were aware of the situation.  It
\n      was further observed that it was not possible  to  ignore
\n      the  fact  that  because of the so-called resolutions and
\n      the permissions  granted,  various  commercial  complexes
\n      have  been constructed on C.G Road in the city and in the
\n      last many years those innocent occupiers are doing  their
\n      business.    Hon’ble   Mr. Justice  P.B. Majmudar  in  this
\n      background   directed   that   while   implementing   the
\n      directions given  by  Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C.  Patel, the
\n      Corporation should consider the hardship of the occupants
\n      of the premises in view of the 1994 resolutions  and  may
\n      grant  sufficient  time  to such occupiers to restore the
\n      premises to the use to which the plans  were  sanctioned.
\n      However,  so  far  as  the  place reserved for parking is
\n      concerned, the Corporation must follow the directions  as
\n      given by Hon’ble  Mr. Justice B.C.  Patel.  It was further
\n      observed that so  far  as  the  rest  of  the  directions
\n      regarding parking space etc.  are concerned, His Lordship
\n      fully   agreed   with  the  views  expressed  by  Hon’ble
\n      Mr. Justice B.C.  Patel.    With  the  above  observations
\n      made,  His  Lordship  expressed  full  agreement with the
\n      views expressed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C.  Patel.\n<\/p>\n
       3. The directions which were issued in the judgement
\n      rendered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C.  Patel are  contained
\n      in  various  paragraphs  of the judgement and those which
\n      have bearing  on  the  present  petition  are  summarised
\n      hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
       (i) The  Corporation  was  directed  to  take  action
\n              forthwith so far as the unauthorised construction
\n              is concerned, and  should  report  to  the  Court
\n              about  the  action  taken on or before 3.11.2000.
\n              The view taken on 6.9.2000 in A.O  No.    441  of
\n              1998  that  no building should be permitted to be
\n              erected  or   continued   to   be   occupied   in
\n              contravention  of  the  provisions  of the Bombay
\n              Provincial Municipal  Corporation  Act,  Building
\n              Regulations and the Bye-laws was reiterated.\n<\/p>\n
       (ii) The resolutions, dated 12.10.1992 passed  by  the
\n              Town  Planning  Committee  and  dated  17.11.1994
\n              passed by the Administrator were quashed and  set
\n              aside   with   a   direction   to  the  Municipal
\n              Corporation to strictly adhere to the “use zones”
\n              and permit erection  of  buildings  and  use  and
\n              occupation   of  the  new  as  well  as  the  old
\n              buildings strictly in accordance with the  Rules,
\n              Regulations and Bye-laws as are applicable to the
\n              “use zones”;\n<\/p>\n
       (iii) Holding   that   the   action  of  the  Municipal
\n              Corporation  permitting  change   of   user   was
\n              contrary  to  the  provisions of law and that the
\n              Corporation had no authority to permit the change
\n              of  user  and  the  use  zones   and   that   the
\n              Corporation   had   erred   in  implementing  the
\n              resolutions  without  the  sanction  of  law  and
\n              further that it had no authority of law either to
\n              levy conversion or licence fee or value added fee
\n              and  thereby  to permit unauthorised construction
\n              or illegal use and occupation of the place  meant
\n              for  parking  and  or  residence  or the like, it
\n              directed the Corporation to take action  in  such
\n              cases in accordance with law forthwith and report
\n              to the Court about the action taken;\n<\/p>\n
       (iv) The Corporation was directed to issue  notice  in
\n              accordance  with  law, if not issued, and require
\n              all such persons who are  occupying  and  running
\n              shops, offices  etc.  in the places sanctioned in
\n              the  plans  for  parking  and  common  amenities,
\n              irrespective    of    the    fact   whether   any
\n              conversion\/licence fee or value  added  fees  has
\n              been  paid  for  such  buildings  or  not, and to
\n              ensure that the facilities as  per  the  approved
\n              plans  and  as  per the law are made available to
\n              the users, and, to give them sufficient  time  as
\n              contemplated  in  the Act, Rules and Bye-laws and
\n              on the expiry of the  period  of  notice  if  the
\n              premises  are  not vacated, to seal such premises
\n              and cause the premises to be used for the purpose
\n              for which sanction was given in the approved plan
\n              and strictly in accordance with the use zone  and
\n              Building  Regulations,  without  waiting  for any
\n              further orders from the Court;\n<\/p>\n
       (v) The Corporation was directed to forthwith  ensure
\n              that the places sanctioned for parking and common
\n              amenities  were  made  open  and  used  for  such
\n              purpose only.  Holding  that  the  occupiers  who
\n              were  using  premises for purposes other than the
\n              permissible use in a residential zone on  payment
\n              of  conversion  fees as per 1994 resolutions were
\n              also not entitled to use the  premises  for  such
\n              purpose, a direction was given to the Corporation
\n              to  issue  notice to every occupier and give them
\n              reasonable time to vacate the premises and to put
\n              the premises to the permissible use  as  per  the
\n              sanctioned plan;\n<\/p>\n
       (vi) The  Corporation was to report to the Court about
\n              the actions taken against the  professionals  who
\n              were concerned with the unauthorised construction
\n              of  buildings  in  this  city  and  to inform the
\n              Institute of Architects if it is found  that  any
\n              architect   has  abated,  aided  or  assisted  in
\n              erection of a building contrary to the permission
\n              granted under the  Act,  Rules,  Regulations  and
\n              Bye-laws.\n<\/p>\n
       (vii) The  Corporation  was directed to ensure that all
\n              buildings are in  conformity  with  the  Building
\n              Regulations  and  to  take  immediate  action  to
\n              restore parking facilities in every  building  as
\n              per the Regulations;\n<\/p>\n
       (viii) Action  was  directed  to  be taken in accordance
\n              with  law  for  change  of  use   without   being
\n              influenced  by  the  fact that conversion fee was
\n              charged;\n<\/p>\n
       (ix) The Corporation was directed to disconnect sewage
\n              connection, if it is found that  any  person  had
\n              illegally  taken  such  connection,  and  not  to
\n              provide  water  and  sewage  connection   without
\n              “building use permission” being granted;\n<\/p>\n
       (x) The Ahmedabad Electricity  Company  was  directed
\n              not   to   provide  electric  connection  without
\n              production of “building use permission” issued by
\n              the Corporation; and   <\/p>\n
       (xi) A Three Member Committee headed by a retired High
\n              Court   Judge,   a  well-known  Architect  and  a
\n              Structural Engineer was ordered to be constituted
\n              for  fixing  the  responsibility   of   negligent
\n              officers stage-wise.\n<\/p>\n
       4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
\n      submitted  that  the  nature  of  the present petition is
\n      entirely different from the nature of the petition  which
\n      has  been  adjudicated upon by the Division Bench, though
\n      the buildings involved are on the same C.G Road  and  Off
\n      C.G Road.   He submitted that in the present petition the
\n      petitioners have sought framing of a Scheme which was not
\n      the subject matter of the earlier petition.  According to
\n      him, there is no overlapping in these two petitions.  The
\n      scheme which is proposed  in  the  present  petition  has
\n      relevance  to the massive effect of the decision rendered
\n      which adversely has affected  the  interest  of  all  the
\n      occupiers of  such  unauthorised  constructions.   It was
\n      submitted  that  the  Corporation  had  made  attempt  to
\n      regularise  the use and constructions, but in view of the
\n      Division Bench having set  aside  its  resolutions,  that
\n      could  not be done and therefore these occupiers are left
\n      with no option but to approach this High Court  with  the
\n      suggested  Scheme  for  rehabilitating  them and granting
\n      relief to them.  It was submitted that this was  required
\n      to  be  done  on  the  doctrine  of  necessity,  which he
\n      submitted, should be invoked since nearly three lakhs  of
\n      persons were getting affected as they were concerned with
\n      the  trades  and  businesses  which  were  run  by  these
\n      occupiers.  He submitted that before the Division  Bench,
\n      the legality and the validity of the resolutions made for
\n      regularising  the  use and unauthorised constructions was
\n      in issue and not the Scheme.  It was also argued that the
\n      decision of the Division Bench was  not  binding  on  the
\n      present  petitioners  because the occupiers were not made
\n      parties to  those  petitions.    He  submitted  that  the
\n      occupiers  though  vitally  concerned, were not heard and
\n      therefore the decision was rendered without following the
\n      principles of natural justice.  He however, made it clear
\n      that the petitioners are not challenging that decision or
\n      arguing against any of the directions which are given  by
\n      the High  Court  in that decision.  He submitted that the
\n      present  petition  was  not  hit  by  the  principles  of
\n      constructive  res-judicata because the occupiers were not
\n      parties to the earlier petition and  because  the  points
\n      involved  in  the earlier petition as well as the reliefs
\n      sought were different and there was no  occasion  therein
\n      to   consider  the  question  of  rehabilitation  of  the
\n      occupiers.  He also submitted that the  State  Government
\n      had  power to make variation in the Schemes and plans and
\n      therefore, the  question  of  conversion  of  zones  from
\n      residential to commercial could be considered and decided
\n      even   after   the  said  decision  and  the  purpose  of
\n      suggesting the Scheme was to see that  necessary  changes
\n      are made.\n<\/p>\n
       4.1 The  learned Counsel in support of his contention
\n      that the Court should entertain the present  petition  on
\n      the  doctrine  of  necessity, relied upon the decision of
\n      Court of Appeal in Mitchell and Ors. v.    Director  of
\n      Public  Prosecutions  and another, reported in (1987) Law
\n      Reports of  the  Commonwealth  p.    127  and  cited  the
\n      observations at page 131 of the report, in support of his
\n      submission  that  the doctrine of necessity in public law
\n      is in reality the acceptance of necessity as a source  of
\n      authority  for  acting  in a manner not regulated by law,
\n      but required  in  prevailing  circumstances,  by  supreme
\n      public  interest,  for the salvation of the State and its
\n      people, as held by Josephides, J.  quoted on page 133  of
\n      the report.\n<\/p>\n
       4.2. We have been taken through  the  record  and  the
\n      decision  rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in
\n      Special Civil Application No.  6794 of 1992  and  Special
\n      Civil Application  No.    6893 of 1992 and have heard the
\n      learned Counsel who has argued at great length.\n<\/p>\n
       5. This   petition   filed   by   an    unregistered
\n      Association of users of buildings situate on the C.G Road
\n      and  Off C.G Road and its office bearers who are also the
\n      occupiers of the commercial  complexes  on  C.G  Road  as
\n      stated  by  them  though  ostensibly claiming differently
\n      couched prayers, such as, seeking an order framing  of  a
\n      Scheme proposed for granting relief and rehabilitation to
\n      the  occupiers  of illegal and unauthorised constructions
\n      on the C.G Road and Off C.G Road, appointment of  a  high
\n      power  commission  to  look  into  illegalities,  seeking
\n      action to be taken against  builders  and  developers  of
\n      commercial complexes  on  C.G  Road and Off C.G.  Road as
\n      well as the Municipal Officers, is nothing  but  a  crude
\n      attempt  to raise before a co-ordinate bench the selfsame
\n      issues which have  been  concluded  very  recently  by  a
\n      Division  Bench  of this Court in its judgement and order
\n      dated 4.10.2000, by which Special Civil  Application  No.
\n      6794 of 1992 filed by the Consumer Protection Council was
\n      allowed and  Special  Civil Application No.  6893 of 1992
\n      filed by the Ahmedabad Premises  Users’  Association  and
\n      others  against  the  local  authority  and the State was
\n      rejected.  This was done after an elaborate consideration
\n      of the matter and the resolution dated 12.10.1992 of  the
\n      Town  Planning  Committee as well as the resolution dated
\n      17.11.1994 passed by the Administrator were set aside and
\n      the  Ahmedabad  Municipal  Corporation  was  directed  to
\n      strictly  adhere  to  the use zone and to ensure that all
\n      buildings are in conformity  with  the  present  building
\n      Regulations  and take immediate action to restore parking
\n      facilities in every building as per the  Regulations  and
\n      issued  various  other  directions  set  out hereinabove,
\n      including a direction to notify the matter before  it  on
\n      13.10.2000  for  compliance with its directions issued in
\n      the judgement.  That petition, also  a  PIL,  related  to
\n      unauthorised  use  of  buildings  situate  on and Off C.G
\n      Road, conversion of  the  parking  area  into  shops  and
\n      inaction  and\/or connivance of the Municipal authorities.
\n      A  direction  was  sought  against  the  authorities   to
\n      forthwith  take  action  against all builders, occupiers,
\n      associations, promoters etc.    having  any  building  or
\n      premises on  the C.G Road, Off C.G Road etc.  to restrain
\n      them from making any illegal use of such premises and  if
\n      necessary to evict the owners\/occupants from the premises
\n      and  pull  down  the  constructions  and  to  desist from
\n      regularising illegal construction or the illegal  use  of
\n      such buildings.    In  the  present petition, the reliefs
\n      camouflaged in the Scheme proposed in prayer clause 32(B)
\n      are sought for the affected “occupiers” who,  as  defined
\n      in  paragraph  3(i)  of  the  Scheme,  are the holders of
\n      premises on both sides of  C.G  Road  in  the  commercial
\n      complexes  commencing  from  Stadium  Circle to Mahalaxmi
\n      Cross Roads, the details of which were supposed to be  in
\n      Schedule I  which  is not annexed.  In paragraph 7 of the
\n      scheme a seemingly innocuous provision is made, which  if
\n      accepted will directly conflict with the decision of this
\n      Court in  the  above two petitions.  It contemplates that
\n      on the coming into force  of  the  proposed  Scheme,  the
\n      Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall stop all demolition
\n      process  in  respect  of  the  premises covered under the
\n      Scheme,  subject  to  the  provisions  contained  in  the
\n      Scheme.   The  word  “premises” used in this paragraph is
\n      defined in definitions clause 3 (ii)  of  the  Scheme  to
\n      mean  “the premises constructed in the building complexes
\n      contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the   original   plan,
\n      sanctioned  by  the  Municipality and which are illegally
\n      converted from (i)  hollow  plinth,  (ii)  parking  area,\n<\/p>\n
      (iii)  use  of marginal land, (iv) change of user and (v)
\n      premises without fire safety  measurements  in  cases  of
\n      high-rise  buildings.” The “Fund” meant to be established
\n      under the Scheme (Clause 3 [iv]) is for  the  purpose  of
\n      relief    and    rehabilitation   of   occupiers   and\/or
\n      “regularisation  of  the  premises   of   the   occupiers
\n      constructed  contrary  to  the  provisions  of the Bombay
\n      Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, Rules,  Regulation,
\n      Bye-laws,  concerned Town Planning Scheme and Development
\n      Regulations.  The reliefs contemplated  under  paragraphs
\n      10  and  11  of the Scheme are that the Corporation will,
\n      after examining  the  feasibility,  permit  in  any  such
\n      building  complexes  construction  of basement parking in
\n      the  area  available  in  the  complex  for  which   “the
\n      Municipal  Corporation shall amend suitably the bye-laws,
\n      rules and  regulation  etc.     to   provide   for   such
\n      underground   basement\/parking  places”,  and  that  “the
\n      Government shall consider and decide the change  of  user
\n      in  respect  of the resolution of the Ahmedabad Municipal
\n      Corporation which were pending before the Government from
\n      the year 1984 and the resolution of  the  year  1994  and
\n      take  appropriate  measures”,  (two resolutions including
\n      the   resolution   dated   17.11.1994   passed   by   the
\n      Administrator  of  the Corporation have been set aside by
\n      this Court  in  the  said  decision  dated  4.10.2000  in
\n      Special Civil Application   No.    6794  of  1992).    In
\n      paragraphs 15 and 17 of this Scheme, protection is sought
\n      for the illegal constructions  made  upto  31st  October,
\n      2000.  It therefore becomes at once clear that the scheme
\n      is  designed  to nullify the effect of the Division Bench
\n      judgement  which  in  substance  deals  with   the   same
\n      controversy raised in those PIL proceedings.  The present
\n      petition   is   also   of   PIL   nature  seeking  to  be
\n      representative of  the  affected  parties  who  were  the
\n      occupiers of  the  same  buildings.  The consideration of
\n      the questions raised and reliefs claimed in this petition
\n      will amount to examining the very controversy  which  has
\n      already been adjudicated upon in the PIL proceedings, the
\n      decision  in  which  was,  interalia, meant to affect the
\n      interests   of   occupiers   and    therefore    operated
\n      quasi-in-rem,  binding  on all those whose interests were
\n      meant to be  covered  by  it  even  when  they  were  not
\n      actually before   the   Court.    The  petitioners  whose
\n      interests in the buildings are affected by that  decision
\n      cannot  question it before this co-ordinate Court in this
\n      indirect manner and the whole attempt smacks of trying to
\n      over-reach the earlier verdict.  This  co-ordinate  Court
\n      will  have  no  jurisdiction  to  entertain the questions
\n      which are concluded by the Division Bench in  respect  of
\n      these  buildings  on  and around the C.G Road, which were
\n      the subject matter of those petitions, even on the ground
\n      that  the  petitioners  were  not  heard  though  vitally
\n      interested  in  the  matter and adversely affected by its
\n      outcome.  The Court  deciding  those  matters  was  fully
\n      aware  that  there  were  occupiers who would be affected
\n      adversely by the decision and this aspect  reflects  from
\n      the  concurring  judgement  of  Hon’ble  Mr. Justice  P.B.
\n      Majmudar.\n<\/p>\n
        Therefore, even the contention that the occupiers
\n      who  had  a  vital  interest  in the proceedings were not
\n      heard,  will  not  justify  our  adjudicating  upon   the
\n      questions in respect of the buildings on C.G Road and Off
\n      C.G  Road  under  the  guise  of  examining  the proposed
\n      Scheme.   There  cannot  be   any   dispute   about   the
\n      proposition  that  persons  who are vitally interested in
\n      the proceedings are required to be heard, but it will not
\n      be open for this Court to go  into  the  question  as  to
\n      whether the petitioners who are occupiers of the building
\n      complexes  to  which  the  said  decision  relates,  were
\n      required to be heard by the Court before  it  adjudicated
\n      upon the disputes raised in the petition, because that is
\n      not the  function  of a co-ordinate Court.  There is also
\n      no question of referring this matter to  a  larger  Bench
\n      because  that will not in any way affect the operation of
\n      the  Division  Bench  judgement  as  regards  the  points
\n      concluded  by  it, which will bind the respective parties
\n      including  the  Corporation   and   consequentially   the
\n      occupiers.   It  is  obvious  that  what  cannot  be done
\n      directly, cannot be done indirectly and in  our  opinion,
\n      this  petition  cannot  be  entertained  since we have no
\n      jurisdiction to decide upon  the  selfsame  issues  which
\n      have been  concluded  by  the  Division  Bench.   Both on
\n      legality  and   propriety   this   petition   cannot   be
\n      entertained and  is rejected in limini.\n<\/p>\n
       6. We make it clear that we have  not  examined  the
\n      merits  or  demerits of the controversy and we dispose of
\n      this petition on the ground that since most of the points
\n      which are tried to be raised in the present  petition  by
\n      the  Scheme  proposed are already covered by the decision
\n      of the   Division  Bench.    It  will  be  open  for  the
\n      petitioners to take recourse to such remedies as  may  be
\n      available to them under the law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000 Author: R Abichandani Bench: R Abichandani, D Mehta JUDGMENT R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioners seek to prosecute this petition in a representative capacity for framing of a Scheme, a draft of which is placed at Annexure “R” to this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFederation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-02T22:31:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T22:31:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3665,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000\",\"name\":\"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T22:31:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-02T22:31:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000","datePublished":"2000-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T22:31:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000"},"wordCount":3665,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000","name":"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T22:31:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-building-asso-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-12-october-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Federation Of Building Asso. vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}