AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.—Notice was issued as early as on 18th Feb., 1988 and in response we have heard the arguments of all these
Counsel appearing for the respective parties and read the affidavits filed by the parties.
This special civil application is to quash and set aside the notification issued by Respondent No. I dated 16-1-1988 which is annexure ''F'' to the
special civil application. The said notification was issued in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Area Development Authority. Veraval-Patan
Joint Municipality and the new Town Planning Committee. The notification inter alia states that Veraval-Patan Samyuktha Nagar Palika has
prepared a draft. revised development plan under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and advertised
the said revised development plan and called objections and on the proposed draft revised development plan by publishing the same in Part 11 of
the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 12th Sept., 1985. It further states that the Government of Gujarat had considered it necessary to make
modifications in the said draft revised development plan of Veraval Patan submitted by the Veraval-Patan Area Development Authority to the
State Government for sanction under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, and that in exercise of the
powers conferred by proviso to subclause (ii) of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development
Act, 1976, Government of Gujarat had published the said modifications under Government Notifications, Urban Development and Urban Housing
Department No. GH/V/124 of 1987/DVP1986-71(87) dated l6th May 1987 in the Gujarat Government Gazette Part IV-B dated 18th June,
1987 calling upon any person to submit suggestions or objections if any with respect to the proposed modifications to the Secretary to the
Government of Gujarat, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in writing within a period of two months
from the date of publication of the said Government notification dated 16th May, 1987. The notification further states that the Government of
Gujarat has taken into consideration the suggestions and objections received by it in respect of the said modifications and in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 the Government of Gujarat
had finalised the said modification and sanctioned the said revised development plan and the regulations thereto subject to the modifications SO
finalised and as set out in the schedule appended thereto. The notification further stated that the 20th Feb., 1988 as the date on which the final
revised development plan shall come into force. The said notification has appended the schedule as regards the sanctioned revised development
plan. This notification is questioned on various grounds.
It is stated that the revised development plan submitted by the Committee instead of the Municipality submitting such plan cannot be acted upon.
It is further submitted that the revised development plan is not approved or sanctioned within the period specified under S. 9 and as such it cannot
come into operation. Reading the annexure ''A'' which is resolution No. 83 of the Town Planning Committee it is submitted that the delegation of
the power to the President of the Veraval Patan Municipality to send the draft development plan is beyond the scope of the provisions of the
Gujarat Town Planning Act and as such any development plan so sent cannot be acted upon. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the
revised development plan was not submitted within the period prescribed and as such it cannot be acted upon. Mr. Ajmera, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that though revision for development plan has to be made once in 10 years from the date on
which the final development plan comes into force, to make a revision beyond 10 years period cannot be acted upon unless extension of time is
taken from the Government. Mr. Ajmera also submitted that the Municipal Council has withdrawn the draft revised development plan by its
resolution dated 22-8-1986 which is annexure ''G'' to the Special Civil Application and as such the revised development plan now in question
cannot be acted upon. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that as per R. 7 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act (Rules ?)
1979, the revised development plan has not been approved within the prescribed time and as such the same will not come into effect.
As regards the first objection it is no doubt true that the Town Planning Committee has submitted the draft revised development plan. Section 6
of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 reads as follows :
6(l) The State Government may, instead of constituting an area development authority for a development area, designate any local authority
functioning in a development area or part thereof, as the area development authority for that development area.
(2) The local authority designated under sub-section (1) as the Area Development Authority shall, for the purposes of performing the functions
assigned to an area development authority under this Act, set up a Planning Committee consisting of the following members, namely: -
(i) Six members of the local authority appointed by it out of whom one shall be designated as the Chairman.
(ii) the Chief Town Planner or his representative to be nominated by the State Government.
(3) The Planning Committee set up under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers, responsibilities and status as are given to a Standing
Committee, if any, appointed under the Act under which the local authority is constituted.
Reading the whole section it is clear that the State Government may designate any local authority functioning in a development area or part thereof
as the area development authority for that development area. From S. 6 it is clear that the local authority designated under sub-sec.(1) as the area
development authority. for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to an area development authority under this Act can set up a Planning
Committee consisting of the members mentioned in that section. Sub section (iii) of S. 3 clearly states, that the planning committee set up under S.
2 shall have all the powers, responsibilities and status as given to a Standing Committee, if any, appointed under the Act under which the authority
is constituted. Section 7 deals with the power and functions of Area Development Authority. No doubt the Government has issued a circular dated
9th August 1986 instructing the local bodies which are designated as Area Development Authorities to see that proposals regarding developmental
plan and variations in the town planning scheme are forwarded to the Governmently after obtaining sanction of the local bodies. In view of this
circular and S. 6(l), Mr. Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the revised development plan which was sent by the
Planning Committee constituted by the Area Development Authority cannot do so since the draft revised development plan is without the approval
of the Area Development Authority which is the municipality in this case. Section 6(2) and (3) are clear to the effect that all the powers that can be
exercised by the municipality as the Area Development Authority can be exercised by the Planning Committee appointed by the Municipality.
Reading S. 6(2) and S. 7 it is clear that the statute itself authorizes and requires the local authority to set up the Planning Committee for the purpose
of performing the functions assigned to an area development authority. Thus, the functions that have to be exercised under S. 7 of the Act can be
exercised by the Planning Committee and such a statutory power given to discharge certain duties to the Planning Committee are taken away by
the circular referred by Mr. Ajmera. Further, S. 6 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act Clearly that the Planning Committee
appointed shall have all the powers, responsibilities and status as are given to a Standing Committee, if any. appointed under the Act under which
the local authority is constituted. In respect of the municipality we do not have the provision for appointment of a Standing Committee in the
Gujarat Municipalities Act, but S. 53 of the Act visualizes the establishment of an Executive Committee consisting of such number of councillors
mentioned therein. The limitations for that Executive Committee is only that prescribed by the rules framed under cl, (a) of S. 271 and by the
provisions of Ss. 49, 54 and 55, This Executive Committee is akin to the Standing Committee that will be constituted in the local bodies such as
corporation. Reading the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, it is clear that the Executive Committee appointed will have full powers in
respect of discharging its functions assigned to the said Executive Committee. Even with regard to the constitution of Planning Committee we not
only find the members of the local authority as the Planning Committee Members but also the Chief Town Planner or his representative to be
nominated by the State Government. Thus, once a committee is constituted it has independent status and gets all the powers to discharge its
functions which the designated local authority is empowered to discharge. Further it is the stand of the Government that having regard to the
scheme and scope of the Town Planning Committee constituted under S. 6(2) of the said Act, it is statutorily not necessary to get approval of the
General Body of the Respondent Municipality before forwarding the proposals for development plan to the Government. A moot question that
arose in this case is, as to whether the local authority which. in turn has delegated its power as regards to the development plan to the Planning
Committee, has power to recall the power granted, or give suggestions .or modifications as to how the development plan has to be submitted to
the Government. We leave the question open since in this case the local authority has not given any suggestions or recalled the power granted to
the Planning Committee before the planning committee submitted its draft revised Therefore, on facts of this case, the Planning Committee had all
the powers to discharge the functions of. the Area Development Authority.
For all these reasons there is no substance in the argument that the draft revised development plan sent by the Planning Committee without
getting the prior sanction or approval of the Area Development Authority cannot be acted upon.
Mr. Ajmera, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after reading S. 9 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act,
1976, contended that in this case, the Area Development Authority has not submitted its draft development plan within 3 years after the declaration
of the area as the development area and that the State Government has also not extended the time within which the development authority has to
submit its development plan and hence the plan submitted as late as 1988 cannot be acted upon. Section 911) and (2) of the Act reads as follows :
(1) as soon as may be after the constitution of an area. development authority for any development area under S. 5, the area development
authority shall not later than three years after the declaration of such area as a development area or within such time as the State Government may
from time to time extend, prepare and submit to the State Government a draft development plan for the whole or any part of the development area
in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) If a draft development plan is not prepared and submitted to the State Government by any area development authority within the period
specified in subset. (1) or within the period extended under that sub-section an officer appointed by the State Government in this behalf may
prepare and submit to the State Government in the prescribed manner a draft development plan and recover the cost thereof from such area
development authority out of its funds.
As far as the facts of this case are concerned, under the preceding legislation (Bombay Town Planning Act) the area in question was declared as
development area and its development plan was approved by the Government as early as 20-9-1973. After the plan was approved by the
Government, the development plan came into force on 511- 1973. In this Municipality, an Administrator was appointed as early as 1983, after
superseding the Municipality and he continued up to 31-3-198-5. On 12-12-1983, a resolution to revise the development plan approved as early
as 5-11-1973, was passed by the administrator. Subsequent to the constitution of Veraval-Patan Municipality, the declaration under Ss. 3 and 6
constituting the Veraval-Patan Municipality an Area Development Authority was made on 30-11978. On 30-4-1985 Veraval-Patan Municipality,
which is the Area Development Authority, constituted the Town Planning Committee u/s 6(2) of the Act. On 21-8-1985, Resolution No. 83 was
passed by the Town Planning Committee authorizing the President of the Municipality to send the revised development plan to the Government.
On 12-9-1985, the Town Planning Committee constituted by the Municipality published a Gazette Notification calling for objections to the draft
revised development plan. On 1211-1985, it also published the said draft development plan calling for objections, in the newspaper ''Jai Hind''. On
9-3-1986 the Town Planning Committee submitted the revised draft development plan with objections to the Government under S. 16. After
about five months on 7-8-1986 the General Board of the Municipality as well as the Town Planning, Committee passed resolutions purporting to
withdraw and cancel the draft revised plan sent to the Government. On 16-5-1987, the State Government proposed draft modification in the draft
revised plan initiating objections and the same was gazette on 16-5-87. On 16-1-1988, the Government approved the draft revised development
plan with modifications. In the meanwhile, two writ petitions came to be filed and disposed of regarding the development plan with which we think
is not n necessary for us to consider as at present. The present special civil application was filed on 18-2-1988.
From the above narration of the relevant dates it is clear that the Town Planning Committee called for objections to the draft revised
development plan by putting it in the Gazette on 12-9-1985. Even prior to that a resolution was passed by the Municipality on 12-12-1983 stating
that the development plan is to be revised. The original development p Ian was made as early as 5- 111973. As per S. 21 of the Act, the revision
of the development plan has to be made at least once in 10 years. Section 21 reads as follows :
At least once in ten years from the date on which a final development plan comes into force, the area development authority shall revise the
development plan after carrying out. if necessary, a fresh survey and the provisions of Ss, 9 to 20, shall, so far as may be. apply to such revision.
Thus, it is clear, the present revised development Dian is in pursuance of the power given under s. 21 and not under S. 9.
Inasmuch as the plan submitted is a draft revised development plan, the contention of Mr. Ajmera that it is not within the period prescribed
under S. 9 has no leg to stand. Hence this contention also fails.
The next contention advanced by Mr.Ajmera is the resolution No. 83 dated 21-8-1985 by which the power to prepare the revised
development plan has been given to the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality and as such the revised plan sent by the president cannot be
acted upon. According to the learned counsel, it is for the T own Planning Committee which has the right and power to prepare the revised
development plan and not the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality. Reading the resolution No. 83 which is annexure ''A'' to the special civil
application it is clear that the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality was only authorised to send the draft development plan under S. 9 of the
Act which is prepared by the office of the Town Planning and Valuation Department of the Junagadh Branch to the State Government and
approved by the Committee. There is a further direction in the resolution that such revised plan if approved. the President is authorised to publish
the same under S. 13. Such a resolution, in our opinion, cannot be termed as delegating the power of preparing the revised development plan in the
hands of the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality. Hence this contention of Mr. Ajmera also fails.
As a fourth contention Mr. Ajmera submitted that there is a delay in submitting the revised development plan. As per S. 9 it is clear that as
soon as the Area Development Authority for any development area is constituted under S. 5 it has to prepare and submit to the State Government
a draft development plan within 3 years after the declaration of such area as the development area or within such time as the State Government
may from time to time extend. Section 9(2) of the Act clearly states that if a draft development is not submitted to the State Government by my
Area Development Authority within the period specified in subs. (1) or within the period extended under that sub-section, an officer appointed by
the State Government in t his behalf may prepare and submit to the State Government in the prescribed manner a draft development plan and
recover the cost thereof from such Area Development Authority out of its funds. In the first place, the development plan was not submitted by the
Area Development Authority constituted under S. 5. In this case the Area Development Authority is the local authority functioning in the
development area, as provided under S. 6(1) of the Act. The said development authority designated as per S.6(2) assigned its authority for
performing the functions to the Planning Committee set up for that purpose. Hence S. 9 cannot have any application nor the limitation prescribed
therein is applicable to the draft revised plan. The present development plan is not the one sent for the first time. It is a revised development plan
which as provided under S. 21 has to be sent at least once in 10 years. Hence the question of limitation will not arise in this case. Thus the fourth
submission made by Mr. Ajmera also fails.
The further Contention of Mr. Ajmera is that as per S. 21 of the Act, the revised development plan ought to have been submitted within 10
years period from the date on which the final development plan came into force. The original development plan was in force from 5-11-1973. The
VeravalPatan Development Authority by its resolution No. 255 dated 12-12-1983 has resolved to revise the said plan. The said revised plan got
the approval of the planning committee only on 21-2-1985 and the same was submitted to the Government on 2-91985. It is argued that since in
this case the draft revised development plan was submitted beyond the period of 10 years from the date on which the original final development
plan came into force, the revised development plan cannot have any effect. Such an argument cannot be countenanced when especially neither the
objects and reasons of such an Act nor S. 21 which are all intended to develop an area, visualises such a narrow construction. Section 21 starts by
stating that ""At least once in 10 years"" and this does not spell out that the revised development plan must be exactly within the date of 10th year.
There is no prohibition against revision of the ,development plan after ten years. Further, :the very fact that the State Government entertained the
draft revised plan and took action on the same, establishes that the State Government has accepted the revision of the development plan. Hence
we do not find any substance in the said argument of Mr. Ajmera.
Mr. Ajmera, pointing out the resolution dated 22-8-1986 whereby the Municipality has quashed the Resolution No. 83 dated 21-8-1985 and
Resolution Nos. 160 and 161 dated 7-3-1986 contended that the original development plan alone is in existence and not the revised development
plan sent by the Town Planning Committee. It is seen from the f acts of the case that much earlier to the resolution referred, the draft revised
development plan has been sent to the Government by the validly constituted authority under the Act. Ultimately the draft revised development plan
was considered and the impugned notification was issued by the Government on 16-4-1988. Hence the resolution in question will not affect the
validity of an act which has been performed by a validly constituted authority. Section 124 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development
Act clearly says that such actions taken by the committee which has been validly constituted is saved. It is contended that draft revised
development plan sent by the Town Planning Committee has been withdrawn. From the facts it is seen that such a withdrawal was subsequent to
the Town Planning Committee sending its revised development plan with objections to the Government under S. 16 of the Act. It is sought to be
argued that under S. 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act the authority which issued the order has the power to withdraw. We are not able to
accept this argument. Under S. 6(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act the Town Planning Committee is constituted for
performing the functions assigned to the Area Development Authority. Once that duty cast upon the town planning committee is carried out, and
the draft revised development plan has been sent to the Government, the Committee as such cannot have any power either to rescind cancel or call
back such draft revised plan sent tot he Government. It is for the Government to act upon the draft revised development plan and take such
necessary steps to finalize the same either with modification or without the same or to reject the same. The statutory procedure is set up for the
State Government to act subsequent to the date the State Government receives the draft revised development plan. Hence the Town Planning
Committee which has been constituted for performing certain duty becomes functus officio after it discharges its duty and after sending the draft
revised development plan to the State Government. In this case much earlier to the passing of the resolution in question. the Town Planning
Committee has sent the draft revised plan to the Government. Hence the resolution pressed in to service as if the municipality and the Town
Planning Committee has cancelled the draft revised plan sent to the Government cannot have any effect.
Finally Mr. Ajmera brought to his support R. 7 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules 1979. Rule 7 reads as follows:
Period within which the draft development plan and the regulations shall be sanctioned under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of
Section 17(1). The State Government may sanction the draft development plan and the regulations submitted to it under S. 16 within a period of
12 months from the date of receipt by the State Government, if no modification is proposed.
(2) If any modification in the draft development plan or the regulations submitted to the State Government under S. 16 are considered necessary
by the State Government then the State Government may sanction the draft development plan and the regulations with modifications within a
period of twenty four months from the date of receipt by the State Government.
In this case, the Town Planning Committee submitted the revised development plan to the Government on 9-3-1986. On 16-5-1987, the
Government proposed modifications in the draft revised plan and published the same in the Gazettee. After calling for objections and suggestions,
the Government approved the revised development plan with modifications on 16-1-1-988. It is clear from the dates given above, that the
Government has approved the revised development plan after a period of about one year and 10 months. It is only on 16-5-1987, the
Government proposed the draft development plan with modification. Thus, the modification was proposed by the Government after a lapse of 12
months. Mr. Ajmera states, if the Government wants to propose any modifications to the draft development plan and to the regulations submitted
to it by the Town Planning Committee, it ought to have done so within a period of 12 months as envisaged in R. 7(l) and inasmuch as it has
proposed the modification after a period of 12 months, the sanctioning of the plan on 161-1988 is vitiated due to the fact that it is published
beyond the period of limitations per R. 7(2), the sanction of the draft development plan can be made by the Government within a period of 24
months from the date of receipt by the State Government if the State Government considers necessary to modify the draft, development plan or the
regulations submitted to it. First of all, R. 7 deals with sanction of the draft development plan by the State. Such a sanction has to be accorded
within a period of 12 months from the (late of receipt by the State Government, if no modification is proposed. If the State Government thinks it fit
to propose modification in the draft development plan submitted to it by the Town Planning Committee, it can propose such modification and in
that case, the period within which it has to sanction the draft development plan and the regulation with modification is 24 months from the date of
receipt of the revised draft development plan from the Town Planning Committee. There is nothing in the Rule to spell out that the modification
must be proposed within 12 months and nothing to show that the draft plan would lapse or get sanctioned as it is. We further see that there is
absolutely no consequence provided in R. 7 if the sanction is not accorded within a specified period. If that be so, the provision under R. 7 cannot
also be considered as mandatory. The Town Planning & Urban Development Act is intended for the developmental activities and improvement in
the Town Planning. To restrict, the proposal for such developmental planning activities it w ill go against the object and aim for which such
legislation has been passed. We are not able to agree with the contention of Mr. Ajmera that if the State Government fails to spell out its intention
to modify the draft development plan and the regulations submitted to it within a period of 12 months as envisaged in R. 7(l), sanction for the draft
development plan after the period of 12 months is void. In this case, the sanction accorded is in respect of a revised development plan which has
to be made as per S. 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. The Notification which is impugned clearly states that this is
not a case where the State Government sanctioned the approved development plan as it was sent; the State Government sanctioned it with its own
modification. The State Government exercised its power under S. 17 of the Act, called for suggestions and objections by publishing the
modifications in the draft revised development plan in the Gazette, gave two months time from the date of publication to get suggestions and
objections and then only revised development plan with modifications was published. Hence, in our opinion, R. 7 will not in any way affect the
validity of the notification in the f acts and circumstances of this case. Even apart from this fact, a Bench of this High Court had occasion to
consider R. 7 in the case of Kikkabhai v. State reported in (1988) 29 Guj LR 569. In that case, a Bench of this High Court observed that in cases
where the State decides to introduce substantial modifications in the proposed development plan suo motu. the requirement of finishing such
exercise within a fixed time limit is not found anywhere in the said section. The Court further observed that it is also interesting to note that even R.
7 itself provides for a period within which a draft development plan and the regulation shall be sanctioned under sub-clause (1) of Clause (a) of
sub-s. (1) of S. 17 and that it has nothing to do with sanctioning of the plan after substantial modification proposed by the State. For such sanction.
according to the Bench, no period is prescribed and R. 7 does not cover such contingency. Continuing further, the Bench observed :
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the following situations emerge : (1) If the State chooses to sanction the draft development plan and
regulations received by it under S. 16 from the competent authority, without any modification. time prescribed during which such exercise has to be
done is 12 months from the receipt of the plan and regulations as laid down by R. 7(l) of the Rules. ( 2) If the State Government having received
such draft development plan and regulations with objections and suggestions as per S. 16(l) read with S. 16(2). considers it proper to grant certain
modifications in the draft development plan which were not granted earlier by the area development authority and when such modifications are to
be made in the light of the objections and suggestions already received by the area development authority, then the said modifications can be made
within a further period of 12 months totaling, in all, 24 months of the receipt of the development plan and regulations as laid down by R. 7(2) of the
Rules. (3) If the State Government thinks it proper to return the said plan and regulations to the authority for modifying the plan and regulations
then it can so return the said draft development plan. Once the plan is returned, the authority has to deal with returned plan as laid down by S.
17(2) of the Act, and then resubmit, the draft to the State Government for sanction. If that happens, the State Government can sanction the same
after due modification is carried out by the area development authority as per S. 17(l)(b) for which there is no period prescribed; (4) Instead of
returning the plan, the State may exercise powers under the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 17(l)(a) and may then invite objections from the public
if modifications are substantial in nature. The said provision clearly indicates that there must be such substantial modifications which the State suo
motu thinks it proper to carry out in the plan. For such proposed modifications, the members of public had earlier no opportunity of objecting and
that is the reason why they are to be published by the State Government for the first time. Once that happens, the State Government can sanction
the development plan with substantial modifications as proposed by it as per S. 17(l)(c) of the Act for which also, there is no period of limitation.
(5) Lastly, the State Government may refuse to accord sanction to the draft development plan and regulations and direct the area development
authority or authorised officer to prepare fresh development plan under the provisions of the Act. Out of the aforesaid five situations, the question
of sanctioning draft development plan and regulations within the prescribed period becomes relevant only in the first two cases. For the rest of the
cases, there is no period prescribed by the Legislature for sanctioning such plan and regulations with modifications.
As the present case falls within the fourth category of cases, it is obvious that R. 7 is totally out of picture and, therefore, it must be held that for
sanctioning this plan. after inviting objections from the members of public by the State Government itself, when such modifications are proposed
suo motu by the State, there is no time limit within which such exercise can be finalised and sanction can be accorded by the State to the plan with
or without such substantial modifications suo motu proposed by it.
In this decision the Court has further observed :
But even otherwise with respect, it is difficult prima facie to agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge that the plan would automatically
lapse if it is not sanctioned within the prescribed time or that the period prescribed tinder R. 7(l)(2) is of such a mandatory nature that any infraction
thereof even by a day or an hour would have such nullifying consequences. However, it is not necessary for us to decide this question as on the
facts of the present case, as we have already shown earlier, the case falls within category (3) for which there is no period of limitation at all
prescribed under the Act or the Rules and, therefore, there remains no occasion for considering this wider question. As a result of the aforesaid
discussion the first contention is found to be devoid of any substance and has to be rejected.
The above said decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Spl. Leave Petn. No. 1372 of 1988 on 5th May 1988.
The above said facts of the case and the principle laid down will apply to the facts of the present case also.
In view of the abovementioned decision and as the facts of this case, we do not think that the revised development plan sanctioned by the
Government on 16-1-1988 is any way vitiated on any of the grounds. Hence the petition fails and is dismissed. Notice discharged. Interim relief
vacated.
After the judgment was pronounced Mr. Ajmera requested for continuing the interim relief already granted for a period of 8 weeks in order to
enable his clients to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as interim relief has been already granted and it is continuing, the said interim
relief is continued for a further period of six weeks from today.
Order accordingly.