Gujarat High Court
Deepak Nitrite Limited vs Vadodara Municipal Corporation , on 28 February, 2018
Author: A.J. Shastri
Bench: A.J. Shastri
C/SCA/11377/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11377 of 2016
==========================================================
DEEPAK NITRITE LIMITED
Versus
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ,
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ANUJA S NANAVATI for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
DHARA P BHATT for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
MR. PARTH H BHATT for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
MS DHARA P BHATT for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 28/02/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of the notices dated 01.07.2016 and 28.03.2016 respectively issued by the Town Development Officer and Deputy Town Development Officer.
2. The present petition was entertained vide order dated 13.07.2016 by issuing notice returnable on 27.07.2016 and in the meantime ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(B) which was granted is continue throughout.
3. During the course of hearing, a broad consensus is arrived at between the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties on the instructions and with due deference to that, Mr.S.I. Nanavati learned Senior Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/11377/2016 ORDER Advocate appearing with learned Advocate Ms. Anuja Nanavati for the petitioner and Mr. Parth Bhatt learned Advocate for the respondent authority has jointly submitted that impugned notices under challenge be treated as notices issue under section 268(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and pursuant to it, the petitioner be permitted to submit representation in the form of reply to the notice and after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent authority may be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
3. In view of aforesaid submission upon broad consensus, the present petition is disposed of in following terms.
(i) the impugned notices dated 01.07.2016 and 28.03.2016 respectively be treated by the petitioner as notices under section 268(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and within the period of one month from today, the petitioner is directed to submit representation in the form of reply to the said notices with adequate material to be attached with the same.
(ii) upon receipt of such representation the respondent authority shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as has been agreed upon, and after considering the reply the authority is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/11377/2016 ORDER law on its own merits, within the period of three months from the said hearing.
(iii) the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the hearing of the notices by the respondent authority and shall not drag on the issue unnecessarily and shall cooperate to see that within the time stipulated hereinabove, so as to enable the authority to take decision in accordance with law.
(iv) since in the present petition, ad-interim relief is operative since 13.07.2016 in terms of paragraph 7(B) in which the operation and implementation of the impugned notices has been suspended and the authority are directed not to take any coercive method such protection shall be continued till the respondent authority takes an independent decision in this regard.
4. It is needless to state that the Court has not examined the merit or demerit of the case of either side and the respondent authority is allowed to take independent decision on merits in accordance with law and shall pass a reasoned order.
5. This petition, in aforesaid terms, is disposed of upon broad consensus of both the learned Advocates upon their respective clients' instructions and in view of similar mode which has been adopted by this Court in Special Civil Application No.12690 of 2016 vide order dated Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/11377/2016 ORDER 07.12.2016.
6. Accordingly, in aforesaid terms, since the petition is ordered to be disposed, learned Senior Advocate under the instructions, does not press this petition. Hence, the petition is disposed of as not pressed.
(A.J. SHASTRI , J) JIGNESH K. PRAJAPATI Page 4 of 4