Gujarat High Court
Patel Shitalkumar Chhotabhai & vs Chief Officer & 4....Opponent(S) on 21 November, 2014
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
C/WPPIL/252/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 252 of 2013
================================================================
PATEL SHITALKUMAR CHHOTABHAI & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
CHIEF OFFICER & 4....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RASESH H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR.HEMANG H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR. PARTH BHATT, AGP, for the Opponent(s) No. 2
MR AJ SHASTRI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR M.IQBAL A SHAIKH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 3 - 4
MR PA JADEJA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 5
============================================================
====
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 21/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) We have heard learned advocate Mr. Rasesh Parikh for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Shastri for respondent No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Shaikh for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, learned advocate Mr. Jadeja for respondent No. 5 and learned AGP Mr. Parth Bhatt for respondent No. 2.
2. This petition in the nature of public interest has been filed by the petitioners ventilating grievance that respondent No. 5 has illegally constructed the building in Page 1 of 2 C/WPPIL/252/2013 ORDER violation of permission for construction of building granted by respondent No. 1 Balasinor Municipality and sought a relief in the nature of issuance of writ of mandamus or any appropriate direction for stoppage of construction as well as demolition of the construction made in violation of permission granted by respondent No. 1 Municipality.
3. On going through the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No. 1 Municipality, it appears that the Chief Officer has already made clear that the building is constructed in accordance with permission granted by respondent No. 1 Municipality. Petitioner No. 1 is an interested party. However, learned counsel for the respondents stated that there is no allegation so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have remedy available under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition in the nature of public interest without entering into the merits with a liberty to the petitioners to seek the remedy available in accordance with law.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) (pkn) Page 2 of 2