Gujarat High Court
Deepakbhai Chimanbhai Fondoriya vs Surat Urban Development Authority on 4 April, 2018
Author: A.J. Shastri
Bench: A.J. Shastri
C/SCA/5116/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5116 of 2018
==========================================================
DEEPAKBHAI CHIMANBHAI FONDORIYA
Versus
SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 04/04/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, has stated that petitioner no.8 is not inclined to proceed with the matter and as a result of which upon request of learned advocate for the petitioners, said petitioner is deleted from the present proceedings.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:
"16(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Surat Urban Development Authority, Surat to forthwith take decision on the applications of the petitioners;
16(b)During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent Surat Urban Development Authority, Surat to take decision on the applications of Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/5116/2018 ORDER the petitioners;
16(c) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. In respect of the grievance which has been raised in the petition, the main submission canvassed is that before the respondent authority, specific written representations have been made which are reflected in the petition itself and the signatures of every plot holders are taken, but, so far, no action has been initiated. On the contrary, there is serious apprehension that if no urgent decision is taken or steps are taken, then common open plot will be encroached. In view of the same, request is made by the petitioners to direct the concerned respondent authority to take decision at the earliest. It is also pointed out that society has been formulated on the basis of common open plot as well in the sanctioned plan and it is attempted to be altered and obligation on part of the respondent authority is that whenever such request is made, the same shall be considered appropriately at the earliest. Having not done anything so far to the issue in question, request is made to issue appropriate direction to the respondent authority.
4. Having heard learned advocate and gone through the material on record, it appears that specific representations have been made pointing out the fact that common open plot of the society is attempted to be altered and some construction is also been undertaken. As a result of this, twice the petitioners have made representations, but, so far, no decision is taken.
Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/5116/2018 ORDER5. Considering the same, the Court deems it appropriate to issue following appropriate directions.
6. The petitioners to approach the respondent competent authority within a period of one week from today with a specific request to decide the representations which are reflected at page-33 and 37 of the petition memo as and when such request is made, the respondent authority shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law and initiate appropriate steps.
7. With this observation, present petition is disposed of as not pressed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the grievance voiced out in the petition. It is open for the respondent authority to take independent decision.
8. Considering the aforesaid situation, it is expected that the respondent authority shall take decision at the earliest.
9. Direct service is permitted.
(A.J. SHASTRI, J) ila Page 3 of 3