1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Nirav Sanghvi, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Mehta, learned senior advocate submitted that respondent No.2 by communication dated 13.08.2019 called upon the petitioner to submit the revised development plan, which the petitioner has already submitted on 03.12.2019. However, respondent No.2 has so far not taken any decision on revised development plan submitted by the petitioner. Mr. Mehta, learned senior advocate therefore, submitted that when the respondent No.2 itself has called upon the petitioner to submit revised development plan, however till the date no decision is taken on revised development plan by respondent No.2. Hence, the proposed action of demolition of structure is uncalled for. He, therefore, urged that the petition requires consideration and in the meantime, the petitioner requires to be protected.
3. Mr. Mehta, learned senior advocate submits that before taking the decision, no hearing was also afforded to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 36(4) of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1979, therefore, debatable issue is involved in the petition and the petitioner needs to be protected.
4. In view of the submissions of Mr. Mehta, learned senior advocate, more particularly when the revised development plan, which is submitted by the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.2, is still pending consideration, let there be Notice returnable on 29.01.2020. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
5. In the meantime, ad interim relief in terms of para 7(D) till the returnable date. Direct service today is permitted for rest of the respondents.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J) YNVYAS Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 07 22:17:27 IST 2020