Disposed

Mithalal Chunilal Suthar (Chairman) v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC17 Mar 2021SCA/4095/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honourable Justice Nirzar S. Desai granted direction to Respondent No.1, the State Government, to decide the petitioners' representation dated 23.09.2020 within twelve weeks under Section 65 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, pending sanction of the Town Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to decide the petitioners' representation dated 23.09.2020 within 12 weeks and consider it while sanctioning the Town Scheme.

Mithalal Chunilal Suthar (Chairman) Vs State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/SCA/4095/2021 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4095 of 2021

¶4

=========================================================
MITHALAL CHUNILAL SUTHAR (CHAIRMAN)

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

=========================================================
Appearance:

¶8

MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

¶9

MS. NIDHI VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4

¶10

=========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

¶12

Date : 17/03/2021

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. K.K. Trivedi
for the petitioners and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Nidhi Vyas for the
respondent- State through video conference.

¶15

2.By way of this petition, the petitioners
have prayed for the following relief/s:

¶16

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition;

¶17

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure-F) before sanctioning the Town Scheme No.64 (Dumbhal – Magob) u/s 65 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976;

¶18

(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the petition, your Lordships may

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

C/SCA/4095/2021 ORDER

¶21

be pleased to grant ad-interim relief / interim relief directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure-F) u/s 65 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 within a reasonable period;

¶22

(D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.”

¶23

3.This Court had issued notice on
02.03.2021 and the same was made returnable on
15.03.2021. The notice was issued mainly for the
reason that according to learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Nidhi Vyas, it is
respondent No.4, who is competent to decide the
representation of the present petitioners,
whereas, according to learned advocate Mr. K.K.
Trivedi, the representation made by the
petitioners is required to be decided by the
respondent No.1.

¶24

4.Today, learned advocate Mr. K.K. Trivedi
for the petitioners, on instructions, submits
that the Town Planning Scheme is pending before
the State Government for sanction and therefore,
as per the provision of Section 65 of the Gujarat
Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976,
the respondent No.1 would be proper authority to
decide the representation of the petitioners.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

C/SCA/4095/2021 ORDER

¶27

5.In view of aforesaid statement of
learned advocate Mr. K.K. Trivedi, the respondent
No.1 is directed to decide the representation
made by the petitioners dated 23.09.2020
(Annexure -F), preferably within a period of 12
(twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of the
order and the authority may, while passing the
order sanctioning the town planning scheme, take
into consideration the representation of the
petitioners.

¶28

6.The learned advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Trivedi does not press this petition, in view
of the aforesaid direction, since this Court has
not entered into merits of the matter.

¶29

7. It is clarified that, this Court has not
gone into the merits of the matter and withdrawal
of this petition shall not come in the way of the
authority to decide the representation of the
petitioners.

¶30

8.Accordingly, this petition stands
disposed of, as withdrawn. Notice is discharged.
No order as to costs. Direct service is
permitted.

¶31

 (NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.)

¶32

Pradhyuman

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Mithalal Chunilal Suthar (Chairman) v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithalal Chunilal Suthar (Chairman) v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shayona Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Manilal Ramswaroop Kalal Vs the State of Gujarat

Barot Pradyumanbhai Vishnubhai Vs State of Gujarat

Agravat Vishnuprasad Jankidas Vs District Collector - Junagadh

Maganji Okhaji Thakore Vs State of Gujarat

Rohitbhai Chinubhai Modi Vs State of Gujarat