Gujarat High Court
Bhanubhai Dhanabhai Dobariya & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 17 January, 2014
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.B.Pardiwala
C/WPPIL/196/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 196 of 2013
=============================================
=================
BHANUBHAI DHANABHAI DOBARIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
=================
Appearance:
MRS NISHA M PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Applicants.
MS VACHA DESAI, ASST. GGOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent
No. 1
MR VIMAL M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent No. 8
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 7
=============================================
=================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 17/01/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent-authority to cancel the lease granted in favour of the private-respondent on the ground of violation of environmental law.
On behalf of the respondent No. 4, an affidavit in reply is filed, which is ordered to be kept with the records.
It appears that a lease was executed in favour of the private- respondent for a period of three years with the stipulation that the private-respondent-lessee can apply for extension of the lease Page 1 of 3 C/WPPIL/196/2013 ORDER provided the prayer for extension is made before the expiry of the lease. We are told that the private-respondent has already applied for extension of the lease on 25th May 2013 and the lease has expired yesterday.
Ms. Desai, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submits that the private- respondent having applied for extension within the period fixed by the State-respondent, so long the question of renewal is not decided by her client, the lease is deemed to be extended for the intervening period.
In such circumstances, we dispose of this writ-application by directing the State-respondent to consider the various allegations made in this Public Interest Litigation at the time of considering the question of extension of the lease, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-lessee. The state- respondent, at any rate, should arrive at its conclusion within a month from today by a reasoned order, and will communicate the decision to the private-respondent as well as the writ-petitioner.
The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that we have not gone into the question whether there is any violation of the environmental law nor have we gone into the question whether it is a fit case for extension or not, and it is for the appropriate respondent to take such decision on the basis of material that may be placed before it.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.)
Page 2 of 3
C/WPPIL/196/2013 ORDER
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
mathew
Page 3 of 3