Gujarat High Court
Virambhai Bharabhai Bhachkan (Charan) ... vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 13 October, 2015
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt, R.P.Dholaria
C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11498 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
==============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of
the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
==============================================================
VIRAMBHAI BHARABHAI BHACHKAN (CHARAN) & 4....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondents
==============================================================
Appearance:
HARSHESH R KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners No. 1 - 5
MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners No. 1 - 5
MR RUTVIJ OZA AGP for the Respondents No. 1 - 3
MR KEYUR D.GANDHI WITH MR. RAHEEL PATEL for NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the Respondents No. 4 - 5
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 13/10/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT) Page 1 of 23 HC-NIC Page 1 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs;
(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue
a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
declaring the action of respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without any authority under the law, without jurisdiction therefore, illegal and be further pleased to command and restrain the respondents from eviction of petitioners from the subject land bearing revenue survey no.247 paiki 2 admeasuring 83.871 square meters situated at village Mota Mandha, Taluka Khambhaliya, District Devbhoomi Dwarka on the basis of award which is at annexure - 'C' to this petition.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents their servants and agents from evicting the petitioners from the old tenure agriculture land bearing revenue survey no.247 paiki 2 Page 2 of 23 HC-NIC Page 2 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT admeasuring 83,871 square meters situated at village Mota Mandha, Taluka Khambhaliya, District Devbhoomi Dwarka in relation to award annexure - 'C' to this petition.
(C) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.
3. The facts in brief, leading to filing this petition, as could be gathered from the memo and other documents, would indicate that the petitioners are jointly owning the land originally bearing Survey Nos. 247 paiki 2, 247 paiki 3 and 247 paiki 5 / paiki 1 of village Mota Mandha, as they purchased these lands jointly by executing sale-deeds dated 13.10.2011. The respondent nos.4 and 5 attempted to forcefully evict the petitioners, their agents and servants under the guise of acquisition of land award dated 30.09.2014.
4. The facts as could be gathered from the memo is required to be reproduced verbatim as under, so as to avoid any plausibility of error in quoting;
4.1 The petitioners submit that on 01.01.2008 respondent no.2 (Essar Power Gujarat Limited) stated to have made proposal in favour of Revenue Department Page 3 of 23 HC-NIC Page 3 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT State of Gujarat for acquisition of land admeasuring 17,69,986 square meters for corridor and other ancillary activities for the benefits of the company and a request came to be made to acquire land of village Mota Mandha and Parodiya of Taluka Khambhalia District Devbhoomi Dwarka.
4.2 The petitioners further submit that on 12.12.2008 in consideration of such proposal the Revenue Department State of Gujarat by a communication dated 12.12.2008 stated to have directed Collector to submit a report under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1897 read with Companies Rules, 1963.
4.3 The petitioners further submit that on 31.12.2008 district Collector in compliance of communication dated 12.12.2008 of State Government, Revenue Department, stated to have directed the subordinates to submit a report. It is further submitted that 03.07.2009 out of required land admeasuring 17,69,986 square meters the company stated to have purchased land admeasuring 15,89,645 by way of private negotiations stated to have executed sale deed in favour of company by concerned land holders. It is Page 4 of 23 HC-NIC Page 4 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT further declared that for remaining land a meeting came to be held with owners of land and company on 03.07.2009 at Salaya office of the respondent company for negotiations as envisage under law. The petitioners declare before this Hon'ble Court that the petitioners are neither party to any such negotiations nor invited by company at any point of time. The aforesaid private negotiations stated to have been continued till 08.07.2009 in relation to offer of price for land by company which was not arrived at mutually between the parties.
4.4 The petitioners further submit that on 02.01.2010 a report of such failure of negotiations between company and land holders stated to have forwarded by company to Assistant Collector, Khambhaliya. The petitioners further submit that as transpires from award which discloses that on 06.02.2010 in compliance of Collector office communication dated 31.12.2008, Assistant Collector issued notices dated 06.02.2010 and directed the private land owners to remain present for the purpose of hearing under rule 4 of Companies Rules, 1963 in relation to acquisition of land for respondent company before Page 5 of 23 HC-NIC Page 5 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT the office of Assistant Collector on 22.02.2010 and 26.02.2010 respectively and stated to have provided hearing to the concerned parties. In which it is declared by land owners about their non acceptance of price of land and declined to give land for the benefits of company. The award further declares that on 15.07.2010 Assistant Collector stated to have submitted his report on above term in favour of Collector in compliance of Rule 4 of Acquisition of Land for Companies, under Companies Act and Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; it further declares that on 10.03.2011 the Collector stated to have submitted above report to the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat.
4.5 The petitioners further submit that it is evident from the award published by competent officer on 08.08.2012 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued and on 24.08.2012 notification under section 4 came to be published in daily news papers, subsequently on 31.08.2012 notification under section 4 came to be placed in village. The petitioner further submit that in compliance of provisions of Land Acquisition Act, on Page 6 of 23 HC-NIC Page 6 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT 18.04.2013 notification under section 6 came to be issued and on 07.05.2013 notification under section 6 came to be published in daily news paper (on 09.05.2013 in Gujarati news paper) and subsequently on 25.06.2013 Notification under section 6 came to be placed in village. The petitioner further submits that accordingly as transpired from the award on 11.07.2013 notice under Section 9(1) and 9(2) of Land Acquisition Act came to be affixed at village Gram Panchayat and in compliance of mandatory requirement it is stated in the award that on 26.07.2013 hearing in relation to objections and about right, title and interest over the acquired land came to be fixed.
4.6 The petitioners further submit that in relation to land stated to have been acquired on 30.09.2014 award came to be passed by Deputy Collector. A copy of award is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure - "C" to this petition. The petitioners further submit that subject agriculture land is not part of award. The petitioners further submit that the subject agriculture land (bearing revenue survey no.247 paiki 2 admeasuring 83,871 square meters i.e. Page 7 of 23 HC-NIC Page 7 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT H.8-38-71 of the petitioners was not part of acquisition proceeding. Despite such fact situation the officers of the company in aid and assistance with police officers are in complete disregard of law and in colorable exercise of powers are forcefully taking the possession of petitioners land. Under these circumstances petitioners are not having any other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of present petition for saving their agricultural old tenure land.
5. The petitioners had knowledge that in such a situation the adjacent land possessor also had approached this Court and obtain interim orders and hence in paragraph no.12, as it originally stood, the petitioners made the following averments.
12. The petitioners are having prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners therefore interim relief as prayed for if not granted the petitioners will suffer irreparable injury which will not be compensated in terms of money and grant of interim relief will secure the ends of justice. It is submitted that in the identical fact situation in relation to Page 8 of 23 HC-NIC Page 8 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT adjoining land to the petitioners in relation to award dated 30.09.2014 annexure - "C" to this petition, this Hon'ble Court in consideration of grievances voiced by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.10671 of 2015 pleased to pass necessary order vide order dated 02.07.2015. Annexed here to and marked Annexure - "D" is computer copy of the order Special Civil Application no.10671 of 2015 passed on 02.07.2015. The petitioners crave leave to rely and refer the order at the time of hearing of this petition. The petitioners further submit that respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land on the basis and under the guise of award dated 30.09.2014 without any authority in colourable exercise of powers solely at the behest of respondent company in active connivance with the police officers which is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to law as the subject land is not covered under acquisition proceeding forming part of award dated 30.09.2014.
6. The Court had passed order in those group of matters and, therefore, identical orders were Page 9 of 23 HC-NIC Page 9 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT urged from the Court qua the survey number of the petitioners being Survey No. 247 paiki 2, as it stood consolidated after the requisite order came to be passed by the concerned Mamlatdar under which the original land bearing Survey Nos.247/2, 247/3 and 247/5/1, came to be consolidated.
7. All these matters were listed together on 05.10.2015 and in this group of matters, the following two orders came to be passed by this Court:
i) Order in S.C.A. No.10671 of 2015 with C.A. No.7384 of 2015;
Ms. Manisha Luv Kumar, learned
Government Pleader submits that the
stand of the State is reflected in the affidavit-in-reply and the land allotted to respondent no.3 is clearly mentioned.
However, as dispute is raised qua the exact location of the land of the petitioner and there are two DILR's measurement of the year 1973 and 2013, the Settlement Commissioner/In-charge Settlement Commissioner shall grant opportunity to all the concerned i.e. petitioner and the respondent no.3 to put forward their version and cases, as there is contention that the measurement of the year 2013 is based upon somebody else's Sanad of the year 1975, which is not authenticated and the original Page 10 of 23 HC-NIC Page 10 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT measurement of 1973 could not be revoked, so far. The entire hearing and decision making process would be over by 16.10.2015. In view of the fact that the decision is to be rendered latest by 16.10.2015, the representative of the parties or parties may be ready with their submission so as to avoid seeking any time.
Learned Government Pleader
submitted that Settlement
Commissioner/In-charge Settlement
Commissioner shall hear them on
09.10.2015 and all the concerned shall avail opportunity to remain present before him for filing or making submissions.
In view of this statement, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, in case, if any grievances remain after decision is received. Permission, as sought for is granted. The matter is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated.
Page 11 of 23
HC-NIC Page 11 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015
C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT
In view of the order passed in the
main matter Civil Application would not survive now, and disposed of accordingly.
ii) Order in S.C.A. No.10794 of 2015 and allied matters:
In view of the order passed in S.C.A. No.10671 of 2015 today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the petitions submits that all the petitions be permitted to be withdrawn and urges that the Settlement Commissioner/In-charge Settlement Commissioner, who is to hear the grievances of the petitioner in S.C.A. No.10671 of 2015, may also be directed to hear the grievances of the present petitioners and seeks liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, in case, if any grievance remain after decision is received.
Permission, as sought for is granted. All the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. The Settlement Commissioner/In-charge Settlement Commissioner shall also hear the petitioners' grievances, if they approach him on 09.10.2015. In view of Page 12 of 23 HC-NIC Page 12 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT the fact that decision is to be rendered latest by 16.10.2015, the representative of the parties or parties may be ready with their submission so as to avoid seeking any time. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
In view of the order passed today in S.C.A. No.10671 of 2015, all the Civil Applications do not survive and disposed of accordingly.
Office is directed to keep copy of this order in each matter.
8. As the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had filed leave report on 05.10.2015, this matter was not taken up and it was posted on next date i.e. on 06.10.2015 and it was urged on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5 and other counsels that similar order be passed, as the concerned statutory authority i.e Settlement Commissioner / In- charge Settlement Commissioner was entrusted with the task of adjudicating upon the locational dispute for the parcels of land in question. As there was an urge on part of the learned counsel for the petitioners of this petition also that this is similar petition, the similar order could have been passed.
9. At this stage, Shri Kakkad, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is not Page 13 of 23 HC-NIC Page 13 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT similar. The situation was similar in which petitioners were compel to approach the Court. Therefore, on 07.10.2015, the Court passed the following orders:
Shri Kakkad, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that this matter though was said to be identical on account of the exigency, it is not identical according to his submissions in other matters in which the orders were passed under which the Court said that all parties were to be heard by the Settlement Commissioner or in-charge Settlement Commissioner on 9th October 2015 and he requested that the Civil Application for amendment be permitted to be circulated. We accordingly issued permission subject to removal of office objection and roster. Inter alia, as the office objections were not removed, those applications were not listed. However, the office did physically placed the copies before the Court. Shri Kakkad, learned advocate for the petitioners, made arguments at length, but he could not indicate as to how and in what manner the prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners, if the similar orders are passed in the present matter also. He insisted for being heard Page 14 of 23 HC-NIC Page 14 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT on civil application also by the time. The Court timing is over, therefore, we are keeping this matter tomorrow i.e. on 8th October 2015.
Accordingly, the matters were taken up and the documents were produced by way of Civil Application for amendment, which is granted.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited Court's attention to the sale document executed by the present petitioners with the original land owner bearing registration nos.3913 and 3914 on 14.10.2011.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also invited this Court's attention to the order issued by Mamlatdar, Khambhalia on 26.11.2012 indicating that how the different parcels of land of Survey No.247 came to be consolidated into 247 paiki 2.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are owners and in possession of land and, therefore, as decided by the Supreme Court in case of Rame Gowda (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. And Another, reported in (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769, the due process of law is required to be followed even if assuming for the sake of argument Page 15 of 23 HC-NIC Page 15 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT without conceding that the respondent no.4 had any right, title or entitlement to the land subject of 247 paiki 2. The high handed action of getting State's aid and police for evicting the petitioners would be contrary to the provision of law and therefore, the petitioners were compelled to seek appropriate remedy by way of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thereafter contended that the respondent no.4 being a Company, if it claiming to be in possession of land in question prior to the sale deed of the present petitioners i.e. from the year 2009, then they could naturally not have permitted the present petitioners to be in possession of land in any manner. Therefore, the fact that they were not in possession and the petitioners are in possession itself is sufficient to hold in favour of the petitioners that they are entitled to protect their possession against the respondent no.4 and State as well.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 submitted that the entire petition is misconceived and it proceeds on the footing as if respondent no.4 was claiming and ascertaining its right based upon the land acquisition award dated 30.09.2014. Unfortunately, the petitioners have incorporated, in terms, the Page 16 of 23 HC-NIC Page 16 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT facts on oath in the memo of petition, as he has invited the Court's attention to the very causetitle, wherein there is reference to the award dated 30.09.2014 as well as the averments in paragraph no.12 to indicate that the petitioners were heavily relying upon the facts which were not supporting their case at all and if those facts are discarded as they are not applicable, then there exists no case on the part of the petitioners to maintain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as originally the petitioners were trying to project, as if the respondent nos.4 and 5 were trying to grab the possession of the land of the petitioners under the guise of the award dated 30.09.2014 with the help of the police. Therefore, the petition came to be filed seeking protection of possession, as the Court did protect the possession of other similarly situated petitioners, as could be seen from the companion matters, which came to be disposed of on 05.10.2015.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 further contended that the entire issue was in respect of the situation of land parcel and, therefore, when all other petitioners in cognate matters were relegated to or rather they chose to approach the Settlement Commissioner and who was to decide the matters, the petitioners could not have said "no" to this proposition and should have rather accepted this proposition, as the same would have been clarified, as could be seen from the orders Page 17 of 23 HC-NIC Page 17 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT mentioned hereinabove.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 submitted that the land in question for which the possession is there with the respondent no.4, the land bearing Survey No.247 paiki 1, and for that land there is a documentary evidence indicating possession and the purchase, as could be seen from the petitioners' document which he has produced at page nos.96 and 102, which would amply make it clear that the land bearing Survey No. 247 paiki 1 belongs to respondent no.4 since 20th August, 2009 and they were in possession since then. The petitioners could not have projected wrong facts for obtaining interim orders from this Court, as the land acquisition subject matter is not involved in this petition, nor is there any land being in question on account of the land acquisition award dated 30.09.2014. It was unfortunate that the petitioners pressed into service the wrong facts for obtaining interim relief from this Court and, therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed as there is no question of any relief to be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the private respondent nos. 4 and 5.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 further submitted that the attempt is to confuse the authorities in the Court for the reasons best known to the petitioners, as when the petitioners claimed that their purchased Page 18 of 23 HC-NIC Page 18 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT documents are clear in respect of land bearing Survey No.247 paiki 1 and when petitioners have also claimed their land to be different than 247 paiki 1 namely 247 paiki 2 after consolidation, the Court may not entertain this petition and dismiss the same, as there is no case, so far as, the present respondent nos.4 and 5 are concerned.
18. The Court heard the learned counsels and perused the documents produced on record. The counsels for both side are absolutely clear qua two facts namely; the petitioners claiming land bearing Survey No.247 paiki 2 and respondent Company has said that they are in possession of land bearing Survey No.247 paiki 1 since 20th August, 2009. The petitioners have claimed possession of even the land of 247 paiki 2 only from 2011 and therefore these facts, as taken on their face value, would indicate that there should not have been any dispute as the two survey numbers are distinct. So far as, the location is concerned, in earlier matters, the Court granted permission to withdraw them as they were approaching Settlement Commissioner. In the instant case, as it is recorded in order dated 07.10.2015, the counsel for the petitioners had chosen to make submission and declined the opportunity of presenting the case of the petitioners before the Settlement Commissioner.
19. The question, therefore, arises as to whether in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article Page 19 of 23 HC-NIC Page 19 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT 226 of the Constitution of India, can this Court undertake a task of deciding the private land disputes with regard to location, measurement and ascertainment of land in a writ petition only under Article 226, the answer would be emphatic 'No'.
20. The counsel for the petitioners has pointed out, at this stage, that even the petitioners' say is not disputed by either the State or the respondent no.4, to which counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 submitted that as there was an application in earlier matters for vacation of stay and this petition was all along treated to be a part of the group, the reply was not filed, but that would not be treated as admission and/or acceptance of the case of the petitioners.
21. Be that as it may. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid discussion would clearly indicate that, so far as the documents are concerned, both sides have placed reliance upon their respective documents so far as the location of the land is concerned. If the petitioners had accepted to move the Settlement Commissioner for raising the dispute qua location of land, the said authority would have been appropriate authority or the petitioners should have moved the competent Civil Court for seeking appropriate relief against respondent nos.4 and 5, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not have been the proper remedy, as the claim of the Page 20 of 23 HC-NIC Page 20 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT petitioners would involve examining of detail evidence and land records and measurements based upon proper Panchnama to be drawn.
22. Thus, it can be said that as the petitioners have raised dispute qua the location of parcel of land, it was duty cast upon the petitioners to seek adjudication thereof in appropriate forum and writ petition being a remedy in appropriate forum for this purpose, the same would not be available to the petitioners. The fact remains to be noted that learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 is correct in contending that originally in the petition, as it stood, the petitioners also sought parity with other petitioners, who have chosen to go before the Settlement Commissioner/In-charge Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners have in fact projected facts, as if, the land was required to be taken possession of on account of land acquisition award dated 30.09.2014, as could be seen from the cause title and the averments in paragraph no.12. But, as it transpires during the course of submission, so far as the land referred under the land acquisition award dated 30.09.2014, is altogether different parcel of land qua which the present petitioners cannot make any grievances.
23. The decision cited at the bar in case of Rame Gowda (Dead) By Lrs. (supra) lay down a proposition that no one is entitled to take law in its own hand and even if there is an encroacher, he Page 21 of 23 HC-NIC Page 21 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT has to be evicted by following due procedure of law. This proposition cannot be disputed by anyone, but that in itself would not entitle the present petitioners to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the petitioners' petition itself contain incorrect facts for invoking jurisdiction, as if the land was sought to be acquired on account of award under the Land Acquisition Act, dated 30.09.2014. Whereas the facts of the present case, as transpired during the course of hearing, are distinct and have not been in any manner connected with the award land. The petitioners' land, so far as the present case is concerned, was purchased by the respondents way back on 20th August, 2009 and they are in possession since then. So far as the petitioners' land are concerned they were purchased under the documents dated 13.10.2011 and consolidated thereafter. So far as the location dispute is concerned, in our view, the same could not have been subject matter of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, as there is efficacious alternative remedy available under the law. The petition is required to be dismissed on the sole ground of having alternative remedy in law. Therefore, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
25. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested that this Court may Page 22 of 23 HC-NIC Page 22 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015 C/SCA/11498/2015 JUDGMENT continue the interim relief, which is granted earlier for a further period of two weeks, which we are unable to accede to as the Supreme Court in case of The State of Orissa V. Madan Gopal Rungta, reported in A.I.R. (39) 1952 Supreme Court 12 as well as this Court in case of State of Gujarat V. Nirmalaben Waghela, reported in 2003 (1) G.L.H. 434, has observed in these two judgments that when the Court is not entertaining the petition on merits and relegating parties to the alternative remedy, the interim relief may not be continued only to enable the parties. As, when the Court is not adjudicating, it would be proper to vacate the interim relief. Hence, interim relief granted earlier, cannot be continued and it is vacated.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Pankaj Page 23 of 23 HC-NIC Page 23 of 23 Created On Sat Oct 17 00:55:13 IST 2015