Gujarat High Court
Laxmiben Chinabhai Akhiya vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 10 July, 2015
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/3858/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3858 of 2014
==========================================================
LAXMIBEN CHINABHAI AKHIYA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
HL PATEL ADVOCATES, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA C SHAH, ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for Respondent No.1,2 & 5
MR Y J PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MS RV ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 , 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 10/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 29.11.2013 at Annexure-E passed by respondent No.2 and order passed in the month of February 2014 at Annexure-G by respondent No.4.
2. By the order dated 29.11.2013, the respondent No.2- District Magistrate directed the Mamlatdar to ensure that construction of Anganwadi is not obstructed and that law and order problem may not arise and for that purpose, he may take necessary action with the help of the concerned Deputy Executive Engineer and the police of the area.
3. By order at Annexure-G, respondent No.4- Taluka Development Officer asked the Police Inspector to provide police protection for the Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/3858/2014 ORDER purpose of removal of encroachment from the gamtal land of Bhalpara village and to see that no problem of law and order arise.
4. The grievance voiced in the petition by the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner is a member of the society and he is entitled to use the common plot meant for common uses /activities of the members of the society and such being the private plot, it cannot be used for construction of Anganwadi by the Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that in respect of such common plot of the society, the Panchayat could not have passed resolution to construct Bal Anganwadi.
5. It appears that the petitioner has already challenged the resolution passed by the Panchayat before the Taluka Development Officer and requested to pass restraint order not to make any construction on the common plot of the society.
6. Learned advocates for the parties stated that the application preferred by the petitioner, being Misc. Application No.2197 of 2013, challenging the resolution passed by the Panchayat is pending before the Taluka Development Officer as on today and there is broad consensus amongst the parties that if the said application is ordered to be heard within a time bound period, the present matter may not be required to be decided on merits and the interim relief which is granted in the present petition could be ordered to continue till the said application is finally heard and decided by the Taluka Development Officer.
7. In above view of the matter, presently, this petition is not required to be entertained. The petition therefore, stands disposed of, however with following direction:-
(1) The Taluka Development Officer- respondent No.4 shall Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/3858/2014 ORDER decide Misc. Application No.2197 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner, within a period of THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of this order after giving full opportunities to all the parties concerned.
(2) Ad-interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 11.3.2014, which has been continued from time to time and in operation even as on today, shall continue to operate till final decision rendered by the respondent No.4 on Misc. Application No.2197 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner.
Direct Service is permitted.
(C.L.SONI, J.) Omkar Page 3 of 3