This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-
"[A] Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Town Planning Scheme No.22 (Akota - Tandelja) of Vadodara Municipal Corporation so far as final plot No.284 and 285 [B] Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the implementation and further operation and/or any action pursuant thereto with respect to aforesaid final plot No.284 of the Town Planning Scheme No.22 (Akota
- Tandelja) of Vadodara Municipal Corporation may kindly be stayed [E] To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[F] To award the cost of the present petition."
On 10.05.2011, this Court (Coram: Rajesh H.Shukla, J.) passed an order, directing the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.1 as well as the State Government. The operative part of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"5. The representation will be decided in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner as well as the affected parties, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of 4 weeks. The representation, which will be made to Respondent No.1 shall be forwarded by Respondent No.1 - Vadodara Municipal Corporation to the State, within a week after it is received. Over and above, a copy shall also be sent by the Petitioner to the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department."
Thereafter, on 30.11.2011, the Court has recorded the submissions of Mr.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, to the effect that the petition itself could be disposed of in view of the directions contained in Paragraph-12 of Letters Patent Appeal No.2339 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.5274 of 2010, decided on 28.03.2011. The relevant extract of the judgment dated 28.03.2011 of the Division Bench is extracted hereinbelow:
"Having regard to the rival contentions of the respective parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the approach of the State Government is very lackadaisical. As per the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, even if the scheme is finalised, there is power with the authority to consider the matter for variation of the scheme, if the scheme is defective on account an error, irregularity or infirmity. Such power can be exercised upon the application of the appropriate authority or the State Government itself can also consider the matter for variation. It appears that there is an inbuilt mechanism under the Act for considering the question of variation in the preliminary or final scheme on account of an error or irregularity, the court of law may not be required to exercise the power of striking down or setting aside the scheme to that extent and that is the reason why earlier the learned Single Judge rightly directed the appellant - original petitioner to prefer an appropriate application / representation to the State Government to consider the question of variation on the various grounds available to the appellant."
It is submitted by Mr.D.D.Vyas, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the interest of justice would be met, if the representation made by the petitioner on 15.06.2011 to the State of Gujarat, through the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, is directed to be considered and decided by the State Government, within a stipulated period of time.
Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits, after taking instructions, that the opinion of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has been received by the State Government on 02.11.2011 and a reasonable period of time may be granted by the Court to enable the State Government to decide the representation.
Upon the above statements being made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following order is passed:-
The Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 15.06.2011, made by the petitioner, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.3, and/or other affected parties. The decision upon the representation shall be rendered, thereafter, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from today.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case. Notice is discharged.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top