1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, with the following prayers:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Orders of Directions and would be pleased to quash and set aside the action on the apart of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 of not permitting the Petitioner to have his important documents, papers and objects back from the premises in question and demanding the payment of entire amount of dues as a pre-condition as being illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, against the provision of law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO direct the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to permit the Petitioner to get back his important documents, papers and equipment back from the premises situated at GF/7 Mangal Murti Complex, Opp. City Gold, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad by removing the seal momentarily;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO direct the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to permit the Petitioner to get back his important documents and papers and equipment back from the premises situated at GF/7 Mangal Murti Complex, Opp. City Gold, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad by removing the seal momentarily pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO grant any other relief as may be deemed fit."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that one shop at GF/7 Mangal Murti Complex, Opp. City Gold, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad has been sealed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, on account of dues of the original owner. It is the case of the petitioner that the important documents and papers belonging to him lying in the shop. The petitioner is not concerned, if the shop in question is sold by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, but is only concerned with getting back the documents and papers belonging to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is demanding the entire amount of dues as a pre-condition of opening seal and giving back the documents of the petitioner that are lying in the shop, which according to the petitioner is against the provisions of Section 140 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. As per the case of the petitioner, the occupier of his shop is only liable to pay the arrears of one year and not the entire amount to be paid, which is due from the original owner.
3. Mr.Sanjay M. Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.1-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, who may be directed to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner's Authorized Representative or learned Advocate, an opportunity of hearing.
4. Upon the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the following order is passed:
The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.1, Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, within a period of one week from today. In the event that the petitioner makes a representation within the stipulated period of time, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the same, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the aspect that important documents and papers of the petitioner appear to be left in the shop that has been sealed. The provisions of Section 140 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, shall also be considered. Respondent No.1 shall decide the representation, in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representatives and all other concerned parties. The decision shall be rendered within a period of one month from the date of hearing.
5. The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case.
Direct Service of this order, is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top