Jagdishbhai Kamlasankar Raval vs State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)

Nirzar S. Desai, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 23.12.2021 issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

Issue Notice returnable forthwith.

Learned advocate Mr. Satyam Y. Chhaya waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents No.2, 3, 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mayank Chavda waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.

It is the case of the petitioners that they belongs to lower middle class and their residential premises would be affected if the Corporation is allowed to act pursuant to the notice dated 23.12.2021 issued under Section 48A and under Section 68 read with Rule 32 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

Learned advocate Ms. Nisha M. Parikh appearing for the petitioner points out to the earlier order passed by this Court in respect of the petitioner's Society wherein the notice dated 17.4.2015 for the very proposed action was stayed by this Court till the representation of the petitioners was decided.

Accordingly to learned advocate Ms. Nisha Parikh appearing for the petitioners, the Corporation did not decide the representation till date though the notice is of the year 2021, the same should not be permitted to be acted upon.

Learned advocate Mr. Parv Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya appearing for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation assured this Court that the petitioners would be heard and a date would be intimated to the petitioners and till the decision is taken as per the direction issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation vide order dated 7.5.2015 in Special Civil Application No.8381 of 2015, the Corporation shall not take any coercive action against the present petitioners.

Learned advocate Mr. Nisha Parikh appearing for the petitioner states that even after the decision is taken and communicated to the petitioners, considering the fact that the petitioners are from the lower middle class of the society and the notice is issued in respect of the residential premises they may be protected at least for a period of one week to avail appropriate remedy available to them under the law, in case if, a decision is taken against them.

In view of that following directions are issued :-

9.1 The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed to hear the petitioners by giving personal hearing within a period of three weeks from today for which date of hearing would be intimated by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to the petitioners within a period of one week from today.

9.2 Once the petitioners are heard, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed to pass a reasoned order taking note of the petitioners submissions and to deliver the order to the petitioners by way of hand delivery as well as by R.P.Ad. At the time of hearing, itself, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed to intimate the date of decision to the petitioners and to take their counter signature. The petitioners are directed to remain personally present on the date on which Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is going to pronounce the decision.

9.3 If the decision goes against the petitioners, the same shall not be acted upon by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for a period of one week thereafter.

With this observations, the present petition stands disposed of.

Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter.