President­ Nareshbhai Khodidas ... vs State Of Gujarat & 3

PRESIDENT­ NARESHBHAI KHODIDAS PATEL....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance:

MR VISHAL B MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR.V.R.JANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ­ 4 Appearance in Special Civil Application No. 6615 of 2015 : MS KRUTI SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.V.R.JANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ­ 4 MR VISHAL B MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 Appearance in Special Civil Application No. 7319 of 2015 : MR J.S.SADHWANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 MR.V.R.JANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ­ 4 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Date : 02/05/2016 ORAL ORDER

1. With consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing.

2. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective respondents in each of the petition.

Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu May 05 01:48:07 IST 2016 C/SCA/5284/2015 ORDER

3. Out of above three petitions, the petitioner - Sanskar Residency, Surat has preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 5284 of 2015 and has prayed as under :

"[A] The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 4.3.2015 at Annexure ­ F and also be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 22.02.2013 at Annexure ­ H to the petition and be further pleased to direct respondent authorities not to precipitate any action in furtherance of the impugned Town Planning Scheme No. 70 (Amroli ­ Kosad, Chhapra ­ Bhata ­ Utran) (draft);

[B] Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may kindly stay operation, implementation and execution of the impugned communication dated 04.03.2015 at Annexure ­ F as well as communication at Annexure ­ H and be further pleased to restrain respondents, their servants and agents from in any manner precipitating any action from action under the guise of impugned action and maintain status quo over the land in question."

4. During pendency of the above referred writ petition, one Jitubhai Nathubhai Vaghani preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6615 of 2015 and prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction asking the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to implement sanctioned Draft T.P.Scheme No. 70 (Chhapra ­ Bhata ­ Amroli ­ Kosad ­ Utran)

5. Similarly, Haridham Society also preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7319 of 2015 and similar prayers were made i.e. implementation of sanctioned Draft T.P.Scheme No. 70 (Chhapra ­ Bhata ­ Amroli ­ Kosad ­ Utran).

Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu May 05 01:48:07 IST 2016 C/SCA/5284/2015 ORDER

6. Pursuant to notices issued by this Court, the Surat Municipal Corporation appeared through Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, learned advocate and filed affidavit­in­reply in the above referred writ petitions.

7. After arguing the matters for sometime, they have agreed that Surat Municipal Corporation be directed to treat the writ petitions filed by the petitioners as a representations and Corporation be directed to decide the same in expeditious manner.

8. Having been heard learned advocates for the respective parties and in view of the statement made by each learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following order is passed.

[i] In each of the petition, the petitioner shall make a fresh representation to Town Planning Officer, Municipal Corporation, Surat with regard to draft T.P.Scheme No. 70 within a period of three weeks from today.

[ii] The Town Planning Officer, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and responsible officer from Municipal Corporation, Surat, shall decide the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order since several objections have been raised by the petitioner in each petition with regard to the construction of wall in one of the petition.

[iii] The Town Planning Officer shall pass reasoned order without being influenced of the present order since this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu May 05 01:48:07 IST 2016 C/SCA/5284/2015 ORDER [iv] Till the representation is decide, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. If any adverse order is passed against any party, the same shall not be executed for a period of three weeks.

9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.) *Kazi...

Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu May 05 01:48:07 IST 2016