Gujarat High Court
Laljibhai Bholabhai Patel vs State Of Gujrat & on 15 April, 2013
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
LALJIBHAI BHOLABHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJRAT C/SCA/2501/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2501 of 2013 ============================================= LALJIBHAI BHOLABHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJRAT & 2....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR ANIL S DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No.1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Date : 15/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:-
10.
The petitioner therefore, prays that:-
This Honourable Court be pleased to admit this petition;
This Honourable court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to accept the amount tendered by the petitioner towards the consideration for plot as is fixed by the respondents vide their letter dated 11.8.1994;
This Honourable court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to fix the amount towards the consideration to be paid by the petitioner for the plot allotted to the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case stated in the petition are that the petitioner is a person who has lost his lands in an acquisition for development of the capital of the State. At the relevant time, there was a policy of the State to grant employment to such land losers and that though the petitioner was provided employment, the same was immediately terminated. The petitioner approached the respondents with a request to allot the plot to the petitioner. Accordingly, Plot No.A-19 came to be allotted in the electronics estate. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.30,000/- towards consideration and Rs.500/- towards ancillary expenses which came to be deposited. It is the case of the petitioner that he had deposited the amount and was allotted the plot and is in possession of the same.
3. Later on, a notice came to be served upon the petitioner to pay consideration at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre which came to be challenged before this court by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10770/1994. By an order dated 13th November, 1995, the petition came to be rejected on the ground that there was no policy for allotting land/plot to land losers at a concessional rate.
4. It appears that earlier also, the petitioner had filed a petition before this court being Special Civil Application No.16045/2011 which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner with a view to take out appropriate remedy by way of representation to the concerned authority. Pursuant thereto, it appears that the petitioner had made a representation on 23rd November, 2011, however, the said representation has not been decided yet. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove.
5. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner who has reiterated the grounds stated in the memorandum of petition.
6. A perusal of the memorandum of the earlier petition namely, Special Civil Application No.16045/2011 reveals that the petitioner had prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-
9.
The Petitioner therefore prays that-
This Hon ble Court be pleased to admit this petition.
This Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to accept the amount tendered by the Petitioner towards the consideration for the plot as is fixed by the Respondents vide their letter dated 11th August 1994;
This Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to fix the amount towards the consideration to be paid by the Petitioner for the plot allotted to the Petitioner.
7. As can be seen on a conjoint reading of the reliefs claimed in the present petition and the earlier petition, the same are identically worded. As noted hereinabove, the earlier petition came to be withdrawn by the petitioner with a view to make a representation which is still pending before the concerned authority. It is settled legal position as held by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A.T., (1987) 1 SCC 5, that where a petitioner withdraws a petition filed by him in the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India without permission to institute a fresh petition, remedy under Articles 226/227 should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the petition and it would not be open to him to file a fresh petition in the High Court under the same Article, though other remedies like suit or writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 would remain open to him. In the instant case as noted hereinabove the present petition has been filed in respect of the same subject matter as the earlier petition which came to be withdrawn to avail of the remedy of making a representation to the concerned authority, without permission to file a fresh petition. Under the circumstances, merely because the concerned authority has not yet decided the representation does not give any cause of action to the petitioner for filing another petition on the same cause of action as the earlier petition which came to be withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. The present petition on the same cause of action as the earlier petition is, therefore, not maintainable and is required to be dismissed on this ground alone.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Page 5 of 5