Gujarat High Court
Mehsana vs Ahmedabad on 18 February, 2011
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2698/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2698 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12501 of
2010
=================================================
MEHSANA
MUNICIPALITY - Appellant(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
AVIATION & AERONAUTICS LTD & 3 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR KUNAN B NAIK for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MRS. KRINA
CALLA AGP for Respondent(s) :
3,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 18/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) This appeal under clause 15 has been preferred by the appellant-Municipality against the order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1250 of 2010. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Municipality submits that though counsel for the Municipality has filed a leave note and adjournment was sought for, but the ad-interim relief granted earlier was confirmed without giving a specific reason. According to him, the demand was for Rs.01,06,00,000/- from the respondent-writ petitioner, and though writ petition against the same was not maintainable, but without any cogent reason, during the pendency of an appeal against such order, ad-interim order of stay has been confirmed by the impugned order. Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submits that the bill is not proper as majority of the amount should have been charged from the State as the respondent-writ petitioner is a non-exclusive occupier.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the Municipality, learned Single Judge ought not to have confirmed the ad-interim order, that too when the appeal is stated to be pending against such demand, and the amount is more than a Crore. For the said reason, we set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2010, and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge on the question of grant or otherwise of the interim relief.
If the matter is a Division Bench matter, then the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to examine the same and may place the matter before appropriate Division Bench.
(S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.) (J.B. PARDIWALA, J.) [sn devu] pps Top