Gujarat High Court
Akbar Bakirbhai Lokhandwala vs Surat Municipal Corporation on 8 February, 2023
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10663 of 2020
==========================================================
AKBAR BAKIRBHAI LOKHANDWALA
Versus
SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BAIJU JOSHI(1207) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MAYANK K TRIVEDI(7906) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR PRASHANT DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR KAUSHAL D
PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 08/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
1 Heard Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Prashant Desai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr.K.K.Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent No.5.
2 By way of the petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"[A] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Page 1 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents, more particularly respondent No.5 herein to remove the illegal construction on the internal road of Maitri Park Society which is encroached upon by respondent No.5 and restore the original position of internal road of the society.
[B] During the pendency of hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents, more particularly respondent No.5 herein not to carry out any activity on the internal road of Maitri Park Society and hand over the same to the society so as to petitioner and other members of the society can use the same"
3 It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of Row House No.45 located in the Maitri Row House, which is just opposite to Row House No.44 owned by respondent No.5. The society was developed by respondent No.4 as non-trading corporation and the row houses at the relevant point of time were constructed as per the plans approved by the respondent Corporation. Subsequently, the Page 2 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined predecessor-in-title of respondent No.5 put up some alleged unauthorized construction. However, upon an application for regularizing, the aforesaid construction was regularized. At that point of time, the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.5 was also asked to give an undertaking that some of the portion of the property belong to respondent No.5 may be part of internal road of the society, which cannot be regularized and if required the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.5 shall remove it on his own. The aforesaid undertaking was given by respondent No.5 during the proceedings, which were undertaken for regularization of unauthorized construction put up by the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.5. 4 Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and respondent No.5 are neighbours and in the past the unauthorized construction put up by the predecessor of respondent No.5 was regularized by the respondent Corporation and at the relevant point of time an undertaking, as Page 3 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined referred to above was given by predecessor in title of respondent No.5. He further submitted that the alleged unauthorized construction / encroachment put up by respondent No.5 causes hindrance in having excess to the house of the petitioner, and therefore, he made a representation to the respondent Corporation on 3.12.2019. However, despite the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have not taken any action against respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5 is a Corporation of respondent Corporation and having political background, and therefore, the respondent Corporation has not taken any action against him.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submitted that considering the influential position held by respondent No.5, the respondent Corporation is not taking any action pursuant to the representation / complaint made by the petitioner on 3.12.2019 against the respondent No.5 for removal of alleged unauthorized construction put up by respondent Non.5 Page 4 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined on the internal road of the society. He further submitted that though the Corporation is having ample powers, those powers are not exercised by respondent Corporation, which results into hindrance in excess to the internal road of the society, and therefore, in view of the prayer made in the petition, the respondent Corporation may be directed to remove the illegal construction put up by the respondent No.5. 4.2 Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner by relying upon CAV Judgment dated 25.7.2018 delivered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pravinchandra Chandulal Patel vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.9853 of 2012 with Letters Patent Appeal No.813 of 2018 and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and another vs. The Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. And others reported in AIR 1972 SC 793, submitted that the Corporation has ample power to remove the construction and despite having the powers with the Corporation, the Corporation is not exercising such Page 5 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined powers.
4.3 According to learned advocate Mr.Joshi, there are no question of facts involved in the controversy in question, and therefore, the Corporation may be directed to act in consonance with the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition. 4.4 Except the aforesaid submissions and case law, no other submissions were made nor any case law was cited by learned advocate Mr.Joshi. 5 Mr.K.K.Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent No.5, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner in the past had tried to take law in his hands and pulled down the compound wall of row house of respondent No.5 for which a police complaint was filed and ultimately compromise was arrived at between the parties on 5.10.2019 and the petitioner had apologized for his action and had promised that he shall reconstruct the compound wall of the row house owned by respondent No.5 at the cost Page 6 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined of the petitioner. The letter tendering the apology dated 5.10.2019 is placed at Annexure R-1 to the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi further submitted that the construction in question was carried out by one Vijay Gandhi and even an undertaken was given by the said Vijay Gandhi before the Corporation while regularizing the unauthorized construction. Though the respondent No.5 purchased the property from Vijay Gandhi, predecessor-in-title of respondent No.5, the petitioner has not joined Vijay Gandhi as party respondent in this petition. Therefore, the petitioner suffers from vice of non-joinder of parties. In para 5 of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5, a specific denial is made that there is no construction on the parking area. 5.1 During the course of arguments, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 can be said to be a dispute of private nature as ultimately the grievance of the petitioner is in Page 7 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined respect of internal road of the society which causes hindrance to the petitioner. He further submitted that the dispute is a private dispute relating to easement rights of the petitioner for which the petitioner is required to be relegated to avail civil remedy by filing appropriate proceedings before the civil court or any other competent court of law having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in question.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi relied upon order dated 15.11.2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.18739 of 2014 in the case of Mohammad Hanif Nasirmohammad Jariwala vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., wherein in similar set of facts, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed in para 5 that by way of filing the petition, the dispute is sought to be given a colour of inaction on the part of the concerned authority so as to bring the petition within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is meant for exercising the extra-ordinary powers. He further submitted that Page 8 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined once the authority has approved the plan and if a party is aggrieved by the said plan, the aggrieved person is required to initiate civil proceedings, and therefore, coordinate Bench relegated the petitioner of that petition to the civil remedy by disposing of the petition.
5.3 By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6 Mr.Prashant Desai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 also vehemently opposed the petition. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Desai by pointing out to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent Corporation submitted that the construction put up by the predecessor of petitioner, was regularized by the Corporation vide order dated 6.12.2014. Further, in the affidavit in reply filed by the Corporation, it was further pointed out that the construction in question was in existence even Page 9 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined before the petitioner and respondent No.5 purchased their respective properties and that the maintenance of internal road is done by the society and not by the Corporation. The Corporation has taken a stand that this is a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5, and therefore, the petitioner is required to avail civil remedy by approaching the civil court or any other competent court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Prashant Desai relied upon the decision dated 15.3.2012 of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sahjanand Flat Holders Association vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others reported in 2012(3) GLH (U.J.) 8, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that the dispute between the private parties cannot be decided in writ petition. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that there is no dispute about the powers of the Corporation, but such powers can only be exercised if the Page 10 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined Corporation is satisfied that the dispute is not private in nature and the encroachment is on the public road. In the instant case, considering the prayer made by the petitioner since the dispute is in respect of internal road of the society, the same would not fall under the purview of the Corporation, and therefore, condescending the dispute between the parties, which is of private nature, the Court may not exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. By relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned Senior Advocate Mr.P.G.Desai prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record of the case, including the decisions cited by the learned advocates for the parties.
7.1 Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner mainly argued the petition on two grounds; firstly that the respondent Corporation is having Page 11 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined ample powers to remove the alleged unauthorized encroachment put up by respondent No.5, for which as far as the encroachment on internal road of the society is concerned, the predecessor in title of respondent No.5 has already given an undertaking and despite that powers are not being exercised by the respondent Corporation and secondly that once an undertaking is given it is the duty of the respondent Corporation to at least decide the representation made by the petitioner on 3.12.2019, and though the complaint is given on 3.12.2019 till date no action is taken on the aforesaid representation made by the petitioner, and therefore, this Court is required to consider the aforesaid submissions in light of the facts of the case as well as decisions cited by learned advocates for the parties.
7.2 On perusal of record certain facts which are emerging are not disputed by learned counsels appearing for the parties that the alleged unauthorized construction, which was put up by the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.5 was Page 12 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined regularized by the Corporation even before the present petitioner and respondent No.5 purchased their respective properties. Further, both the petitioner and respondent No.5 purchased their properties subsequently after the aforesaid alleged construction on the internal road of the society was put up by predecessor-in-title of respondent No.5, first the respondent No.5 purchased the property and thereafter the petitioner purchased the property. 7.3 As far as the powers of the officers of the respondent Corporation are concerned, as rightly pointed out by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai that there is no dispute about the powers of the respondent Corporation. However the only question is whether such powers can be directed to be exercised by the respondent Corporation in respect of internal road of the society or not. When the respondent Corporation itself on oath stated that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 is private in nature as it pertains to the internal road of the society, whether the Court would be justified in Page 13 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined directing the respondent Corporation to exercise the powers for which there is no dispute raised by the Corporation.
7.4 Considering the prayer made by the petitioner what transpires is the fact that as such whatever alleged unauthorized construction is put up on internal road of the society by respondent No.5, which causes hindrance to the petitioner in smooth ingress and agrees to his property, the nature of grievance of the petitioner is in respect of easement rights and the dispute is about internal road of the society, which is a non-trading corporation. The aforesaid facts does not dispute by the parties and what is required to be seen is whether the aforesaid construction allegedly put up by the predecessor of respondent No.5 can be said to be an encroachment or not. For determining the above issue as to whether the construction is as per the development plan or not, is required to be decided by leading the evidence and merely by looking at the documents when the Corporation has categorically stated that the Page 14 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined dispute is of private nature and has regularized the alleged unauthorized construction of the respondent No.5, this Court did not deem it proper to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as this Court is convinced from the documents on record that except for making allegations that the encroachment is made by the respondent No.5, there is no evidence which can be considered by this Court to come to a conclusion that there is an encroachment put up by respondent No.5.
7.5 Whether there is an encroachment or not is the subject matter of evidence for which this Court cannot exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same should be left to the civil court if any dispute is raised by either of the parties. As the civil court or any other court having jurisdiction would only be the proper forum to adjudicate the issue, and therefore, even if the Corporation has powers to remove the the construction, no direction can be issued to the Coronation unless there is a specific conclusion that Page 15 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined there is an encroachment made by the respondent No.5. The respondent Corporation itself has taken a stand that this is a private dispute.
7.6 Further, as far as the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that respondent No.5 was a Corporator at the relevant point of time, the respondent Corporation has just with a view to favour him has not taken any action against the respondent No.5 is concerned, at the time when the order is being dictated it was clarified by Mr.Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent Corporation that the respondent No.5 was a Corporator in the past and now he is not holding the post of Corporator. Further, on perusal of material, there is nothing to indicate that merely because of the position of respondent No.5 he has been favoured illegally. On the contrary, the record indicates that the petitioner had taken the law in his hands and pulled down the compound wall constructed by respondent No.5 for which later on he tendered unconditional apology and assured that the compound Page 16 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined wall shall be constructed at his cost which shows the desperation of the petitioner to take action anyhow against the respondent No.5.
7.7 As far as judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the cases of Pravinchandra Chandulal Patel (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that the said judgment was delivered in altogether different context by the Division Bench as the first para of the said judgment categorically makes it clear that before the learned Single Judge the counsel for the Corporation made a specific statement that the order dated 18.7.2016 passed by the Deputy Town Planner shall be implemented within a period of one week from the order and subsequently while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Corporation was directed to take steps in respect of the order passed under Section 260(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, which also indicates that in that case the Corporation itself had issued notice under Section 260 of the Act and it was alleged that despite issuing the notice the Corporation was not Page 17 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined acting upon the said notice which also shows that prima facie the Corporation was convinced that there is an unauthorized construction and the said construction was not in consonance with either the approved plan or as per the General Development Control Regulations. In the instant case, when the Corporation has not issued any notice to the respondent No.5 and Corporation has specifically come out with a case that the dispute between the parties is private dispute, the aforesaid judgment, according to this Court, will not help the petitioner. As far as the another judgment relied by the petitioner in the case of The Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment the Court finds that the said judgment was in respect of implementation of Town Planning Scheme, which is not the case here. In the instant case, what is alleged by the petitioner is that respondent No.5 has put up illegal construction and that direction is sought for removal the same, and therefore, since the subject matter is altogether different, the aforesaid judgment also would not help the petitioner. Page 18 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined 7.8 As far as the judgment relied by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Prashant Desai in the case of Sahjanand Flat Holders Association (supra) is concerned, in similar set of facts as of the present petition, the Division Bench of this Court in para 3 observed as under:
"3. We have gone through the papers of petition along with civil application and affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 by which several sale deeds have been produced by which the appellant and respondent No.4 had purchased the part of property. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also produced photographs along with the affidavit-in-reply which shows that no fresh construction is carried out by the respondent No.4 as alleged by the appellant. It appears from the photographs that the construction which has been alleged to have been made by the respondent No.4 is of a compound wall, and from the documentary evidence, it appears that the compound wall is constructed since 1981. By way of present petition, the original petitioners prayed that the direction may be issued to the Corporation to take steps to remove the so-called Page 19 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined encroachment of the common plot by respondent No.4 on common open plot. The learned Single Judge has observed in para 2 which reads as under. "Thus, essentially the dispute between the petitioner and Downloaded on : Tue Feb 14 10:31:16 IST 2023 LPA/47/2012 3/4 JUDGMENT respondent no.4, if any, is sought to be given colour of inaction on the part of the concerned authorities so as to bring the petitioner within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my view, the petitioner who has not cared to mention in the memo of the petition as to what is the nature of the petitioner association, could not have maintained the writ petition against respondent no.4 on the spacious plea of inaction on the part of the authorities. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is meant for exercising power which is in terms "extraordinary" and if the Courts starts exercising power at the instance of one party who has roped in the agency of the State under semblance of so called inaction on their part, such petition cannot be said to be a petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant for examining the nitty-gritty of fine rights existing between respondent no.4 and the petitioner. Examination of plans, correctness of plans, examination of Page 20 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined raja-chithy, correctness of raja-chithi would certainly not fall under the purview of the Courts jurisdiction. Courts rather would relegate party to the civil proceedings. In the instant case plain reading of the petition would imminently show that the petitioner has grievance only against respondent no.4. Concerned authority has done its job by approving plan and, if somebody is deviating from the plan, it is always open to the concerned person who is aggrieved of the deviation to approach the Court, i.e. the civil court and establish his right qua the another deviating citizen, trust or institution. The authority if in such a case is called upon Downloaded on : Tue Feb 14 10:31:16 IST 2023 LPA/47/2012 4/4 JUDGMENT to act, then, the authority will assume the role of adjudication which is not essentially the role of the authority under the BPMC Act. The petition being hopelessly meritless deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected with cost."
7.9 Further, in another similar set of facts, a coordinate bench of this Court while disposing of Special Civil Application No.18739 of 2014 in the case of Mohammad Hanif Nasirmohammad Jariwala (supra) Page 21 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined in paras 5, 6 and 7, the Court observed as under:
"5. The disputed issues raised between the parties pertain to whether the road in question is a public road or is a private road alongwith other issues with respect to encroachment and unauthorised construction by the private respondents herein. By the present petition the dispute is sought to be given a colour of inaction on the part of the concerned authority so as to bring the petition within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent body herein has categorically stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the alleged road is within the society and a private road. This fact is disputed by the petitioner alleging that the said road is a public road. On the basis of this contention the petitioner herein is alleging inaction on the part of the respondents No.2 and 3 in removing the encroachment made by the private respondents. 6. It is well settled that the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is meant for exercising the extra-ordinary power. Once the concerned authority has approved the plan, and if in the opinion of one party, any person is deviating from such plan, it is always open for the person Page 22 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined aggrieved of such deviation to initiate civil proceedings in an appropriate civil Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 14 10:33:34 IST 2023 C/SCA/18739/2014 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 court to establish his right qua another deviating citizen, trust or institution. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, the petitioner is relegated to pursue his remedy by way of civil proceedings in appropriate civil court. The petitioner is also at liberty to raise all the contentions as available to him in law in the said civil proceedings. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it will be open for the parties herein to raise all the contentions which are available to them in law as well as the contentions therein before the appropriate civil court/authority."
7.10 The aforesaid two judgments on which reliance was placed by Mr.Prashant Desai, learned Senior Advocate and learned advocate Mr.Trivedi would indicate that the facts of those cases are similar to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly when a specific stand is taken by the respondent Corporation that the dispute is of private nature, Page 23 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined instead of entertaining this petition, interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to approach the civil court for adjudication of dispute.
7.11 Learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for the petitioner also made a prayer that if this Court is not entertaining this petition by issuing direction to the respondent Corporation to remove the alleged unauthorized construction put up by respondent No.5 or its predecessors, in that case, the Corporation may be directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 3.12.2019. This Court is of the view that even that prayer is not required to be entertained for the reason that a specific stand of the Corporation is that the dispute is of private nature and the subject matter is about internal road of the society and when the dispute does not fall within the purview of the Corporation, any direction issued to the respondent Corporation to consider the representation made by the petitioner would result into indirectly conferring jurisdiction to Page 24 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10663/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2023 undefined Corporation, and therefore, even that prayer is rejected.
8 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is required to the dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Notice discharged. No costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 25 of 25 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:36:00 IST 2023