Gujarat High Court
Musla Firozkhan Alikhan vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 12 April, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/6128/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6128 of 2016
==========================================================
MUSLA FIROZKHAN ALIKHAN....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BIPIN I MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VICKY B MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 12/04/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Following is the prayer made in para 19 of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:-
"(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction by staying the execution, implementation and operation of order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.3 in case no. JMN/73AA/Case no.4/2015-
Amirgadh till any final order or verdict is passed by the respondent no.2 herein upon the stay application preferred by the petitioner in revision application no.JMN/BNS/2/2016.
(b) .....
(c) ...."
2. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed Revision Application No.2 of 2016 before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) with an application for stay. Mr. Mehta submitted that hearing on the application for stay was already concluded and the matter was kept for pronouncing/ making order on the stay application on 26.4.2016. However, before the order could be made by the Secretary on the stay application, the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Apr 13 02:35:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/6128/2016 ORDER respondent No.3 is forcing the petitioner to vacate the plot so as to implement his order. He, therefore, urged to direct the respondent No.3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for vacating the plot in question till the Secretary pronounces the order on the interim stay application preferred in the revision application by the petitioner.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. J.K. Shah on the other hand submitted that the Court may not consider the request to grant stay against the order made by the Deputy Collector and since as per the case of the petitioner, the stay application is heard, this petition may not be entertained at this stage.
4. The Court having heard learned advocates for the parties however finds that once there was a stay application preferred along with the revision application whereon hearing was concluded as per the say of the petitioner, before order is pronounced on the said stay application, if coercive action is taken against the petitioner, the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss. In such view of the matter, without entering into the merits of the case, the Court deems it proper to direct the respondent No.3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for vacating the plot in question till order on the stay application preferred by the petitioner before the Secretary in his revision application is pronounced by the Secretary. The respondent No.3 is therefore, directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for the purpose of vacating the plot in question till order is pronounced by the Secretary/ Additional Secretary before whom Revision Application No.2 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner is pending. However, if the Secretary/ Additional Secretary does not pronounce order on the date, i.e. 26.4.2016, as fixed for the purpose of pronouncement of the order on the stay application, as stated by learned advocate for the petitioner, the concerned Secretary/ Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Apr 13 02:35:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/6128/2016 ORDER Additional Secretary may then pronounce or make appropriate order on the stay application within a week thereafter and till such time, respondent No.3 shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner.
5. With aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
Direct Service is permitted.
(C.L.SONI, J.) Omkar Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Apr 13 02:35:25 IST 2016