Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Hareshbhai Govindlal Shah vs District Collector & on 13 April, 2017

Author: R.M.Chhaya

Bench: R.M.Chhaya

                 C/SCA/13872/2016                                             ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13872 of 2016

         ==========================================================
                      HARESHBHAI GOVINDLAL SHAH....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
                       DISTRICT COLLECTOR & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR. KRUTIK PARIKH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

                                    Date : 13/04/2017
                                     ORAL ORDER

[1] Heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay  for the petitioner, Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for  respondent No.1 and Mr. Mousam Yagnik for respondent  No.2.

[2] By way of this petition under Article 226 of  the   Constitution   of   India,   the   petitioner   has  challenged   the   order   dated   13.05.2016,   which   is   a  communication   for   on   behalf   of   the   Collector,  informing   the   petitioner   that   his   application   under  Section 258(1) of the Act has been dismissed.

[3] Learned   advocate   Mr.   Prabhakar   Upadyay  appearing for the petitioner contended that the said  order   is   passed   without   affording   reasonable  opportunity   to   the   petitioner   though   several  Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Aug 15 23:24:42 IST 2017 C/SCA/13872/2016 ORDER contentions were raised. This Court thought it fit to  examine   the   said   contentions   of   non­hearing.   In   the  affidavit­in­reply filed by the respondent no.1, it is  not mentioned that hearing was given, on the contrary,  candidly   it   has   been   stated   by   the   respondent   No.1  that on the basis of the report received from Deputy  Collector, Thasara, the authority thought it fit that  there   is   no   lacuna   in   the   resolution   passed   by   the  respondent   No.2­Municipality   and   accordingly   the  Authority   has   disposed   of   the   application   of   the  petitioner   by   way   of   communication­cum­order   dated  13.05.2016.

[4] Learned AGP Mr. Krutik Parikh appearing for  the   respondent   No.1   and   Mr.   Mousam   Yagnik   appearing  for the respondent No.2 reiterated the stand taken by  the respondent no.1 in the affidavit that as such the  petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy by  way of filing revision before the State Government.

[5] Having   gone   through   the   records   of   the  petition and considering the contentions raised by the  learned   counsel   appearing   for  the   parties,   it   is   an  admitted   position   that   the   impugned   order­cum­  communication dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Authority  is   passed   without   giving   reasonable   opportunity   of  being heard.

[6] Considering the provisions of Section 258 of  the Gujarat Municipality Act, 1963, as well as ratio  laid   down   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of    H.H.  Parmar   Vs.   Collector,   Rajkot   &   Anr.   reported   in  Vol.20,   1979(2)GLR,97,  the   order   deserves   to   be  Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Aug 15 23:24:42 IST 2017 C/SCA/13872/2016 ORDER quashed   only   on   solitary   ground   of   breach   of  principles of natural justice.

[7] Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex  Court   in   the   case   of  Whirlpool   Corporation   Vs.  Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors.  reported in  AIR  1999   Supreme  Court  22, in light of the fact that  the hearing is not given, availability of alternative  remedy would not in any manner bar the jurisdiction of  this   Court   under   Article   226   of   the  Constitution   of  India.

[8] In   the   aforesaid   grounds,   the   impugned  communication­cum­order   dated   13.05.2016   passed   by  District   Collector,   Kheda   is   hereby   quashed   and   set  aside.   The   District   Collector,   Kheda   shall   give   an  opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   petitioner   and   pass  afresh   order   in   accordance  with   law,   without  in  any  manner being influenced by order impugned.

[9]   It   is   however   clarified   that   it   will   be  open   for   the   petitioner   to   take   all   available  contentions which are raised in the present petition.  The   petition   is   allowed   only   on   the   sole   ground   of  non­hearing. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid  extent. No order as to costs. 

(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) manoj Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Aug 15 23:24:42 IST 2017