1. Mr.
Umang A. Vaghela, learned advocate for Mr. A.J. Yagnik and Mr.V.H. Kanara, learned advocates for the petitioner, has requested that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw present petition as the petitioner wants to file fresh petition memo instead of present memo of petition.
2. At this stage, in response to the query as to why the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for respondent No.1 GIDC has submitted that certain relevant and material facts have not been mentioned in the petition, e.g. the fact that the petitioner himself had made a request to respondent GIDC to transfer its plot has not been mentioned and the petition suffers from suppression and probably for that reason, the petitioner now seeks permission to withdraw present petition.
3. Since until now any notice is not issued request to withdraw the petition is granted, however, on the condition and with clarification that if the petitioner prefers fresh petition, its maintainability would be considered by the Court at the time of hearing.
4. The petitioner shall file, along with such petition, the entire record of present petition as well as a copy of this order.
5. It is reiterated that the maintainability of fresh petition, if filed by the petitioner, will be considered by the Court at the time of hearing such petition.
6. With the aforesaid clarification, permission to withdraw the petition is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top