(1) RULE.
Ms.Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5, Mr.Chetan Pandya, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2, and Ms.Shivya A. Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and waive service of rule for the respective parties. With consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as a short issue of considering the permission to construct is pending before respondent No.3-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), the matter is taken up for final disposal.
(2) By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for removal of the seal of the party plot of the petitioner applied by respondent No.3-AMC predominantly.
(3) In response to the notice issued by this Court respondent No.3-AMC, the local authority as well as appropriate authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 as well as under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 has filed an affidavit-in-reply.
(4) Considering the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply it has been pointed out that after submission of the application dated 17.01.2011 the Civil Engineer and Clerk of works as well as the Structural Engineer appointed by the petitioner gave resignations and because of which the development could not be prosecuted further. It is further averred in the affidavit that in fact respondent No.3 authority also informed about the same by communication dated 14.02.2011. It appears from the affidavit-in-reply that respondent No.3 has no objection in considering the plans submitted by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is required to fulfill the requirements also to remove the discrepancies which are pointed out by communication dated 14.02.2011.
(5) Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner shall comply with the requisitions as per the communication dated 14.02.2011, if some time is granted.
(6) Ms.Shivya A. Desai, learned advocate, on instructions from respondent No.3, states that if the petitioner fulfills the requirements of general development regulations applicable to respondent No.3 and removes all the defects and discrepancies, respondent No.3 has no hesitation in scrutinizing the said application, taking appropriate decision in such application for grant of permission to construct upon the land in question.
(7) Considering the aforesaid, following directions shall subserve the interest of justice:
(i) The petitioner shall comply with the provisions of general development regulations and submit necessary documents and remove all the defects, which are mentioned in the communication dated 14.02.2011 (Annexure-B - Page 95 of the paper book) within a period of 03 (three) weeks from today;
(ii) On receipt of the same respondent No.3 shall scrutinize the same within a period of 01 (one) week and if any further defects are found respondent No.3 shall inform the petitioner forthwith;
(iii) If no defects are found respondent No.3-AMC shall scrutinize and deal with the application for permission filed by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously possible, but not later then 04 (four) weeks. In case of any discrepancies time taken by the petitioner to remove such defects shall be excluded for the aforesaid period of 04 (four) weeks.
(8) With these observations the petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Top