(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Applicant appearing in person sought to join Shri Bhupendrabhai Bhavsar, Trustee, Sambhavnath SwetambarMurtipujak Sangh as additional respondent NO.3. Permission as prayed for granted. Issue notice to such additional respondent returnable on 9th April, 2012. Learned Advocate Shri Dipen Desai waives such notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
The applicant has been complaining that the Municipal Authorities that is respondents No.1 and 2 are not complying with the directions issued by this COurt. We notice that the learned Single Judge passed order as far back as on 29th March, 2011 directed such authorities to abide by the statement that the construction put up by respondent No.3 is unauthorized and illegal and that for such purpose, the Corporation has issued notice. The Court took notice of the statement that the further steps would be taken within two weeks from the date of the order and the illegal construction shall be demolished.
It appears that the respondent No.3 preferred appeal against such order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench in the order dated 21st July, 2011 did not disturb the order passed by the learned Single Judge but only provided that it would be open for the said respondent to appear before the concerned authority of the Corporation with necessary plans sanctioned or permission if at all granted earlier in this regard and to point out to the Corporation that the construction is as per the permission granted earlier by the Corporation.
Subsequently said respondent filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3015 of 2011 pointing out that by virtue of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011, it would be open for such respondent to seek regularization of the construction in question. Such application also came to be rejected by the Division Bench by order dated 12.12.2011 observing that mainly because there could be scope of regularization of such unauthorized construction by subsequent statute, this court cannot pass any order, the effect of which will be to upset the order which has attained finality in view of the dismissal of appeal. Learned Counsel Mr. Desai however submitted that the Trust has preferred Special Leave Petition before the apex court against both the orders. Such Special Leave Petition is likely to come up for preliminary hearing within a week or so.
Learned advocate Shri Joshi for the Municipal Authorities has tried to explain the steps taken by the authorities to comply the court's orders. We are however prima facie not satisfied that the Municipal Authorities have shown sufficient seriousness and promptness in complying with the court's direction. However, when it is pointed out that the orders passed by this court are under challenge before the apex court, we would like to await the out-come thereof.
On the next date of hearing, the respondent No.3 shall place on record order that might be passed by the apex court. Learned advocate Mr. Desai stated that there shall be no further expansion of the existing structure of the temple.Learned advocate Mr. Joshi for respondent No.1 and 2 stated that if ultimately the apex court dismisses appeal of the present respondent no.3, the Corporation shall take steps as directed by this Court without any further delay. S.O. to 9.4.2012.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.Soni,J.) an vyas Top