Gujarat High Court
Kiran Gems Pvt Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 9 March, 2018
Author: A.J.Shastri
Bench: A.J. Shastri
C/SCA/3306/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3306 of 2018
==========================================================
KIRAN GEMS PVT LTD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BOMI H SETHNA(5864) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 09/03/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this petition.
(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ direction and / or order by quashing and setting aside the issuance of notice dated 13.6.2016 and 30.6.2016 at annexure-A and held that the entire process of issuance of notice be held illegal;
(C) Pending admission and / or final disposal this Hon'ble Court be pleased restrain the respondent no.2 from taking possession of any part of Final Plot no.9.
(D) Ad-interim and / or interim ex-parte relief in terms of para (C) herein above may kindly be granted.Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/3306/2018 ORDER
(E) Any such other and further order as deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and on advanced copy Mr.D.G.Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent Corporation.
3. Considering the undisputed position that the present petition is at a stage of notice under Section 260 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, in which the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why unauthorised construction alleged may not be demolished. It is also stated by the learned advocate that pursuant to the said notice dated 21.06.2016, reply has also been given. However, the learned advocate states that in addition to the earlier reply to the notice, he may be given one opportunity to submit further reply within a period of one week from today. The said request is not resisted by Mr.D.G.Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent Corporation.
4. The petitioner may do so along with the necessary documents and since the petition is at the stage of notice under Section 260 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, the petition is not maintainable as being premature. However, it goes without saying that respondent Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/3306/2018 ORDER no.1 authority shall follow the procedure as prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 260 of the Act.
5. With these observations, petition being premature is not entertained. Hence, the same is not pressed, under instructions.
6. It is needless to say that the Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with regard to the stand taken by the petitioner, however, has taken a note that under urgent situation it appears that on 23.02.2018, the undertaking has also been given by the petitioner. However, be that as it may, the petitioner is entitled to submit his case before the authority as agreed upon in the aforesaid time schedule and authority is expected to take suitable decision in accordance with law. As the authority is under an obligation to comply with the process of law, the earlier protection be continued till final decision is taken by the respondent authority. It is made clear that the petitioner has to represent within a time schedule prescribed by this Court failing which on account of his non-cooperation, it would be open for the authority to take appropriate action under the law. Direct service today is permitted.
(A.J.SHASTRI, J.) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 3 of 3