This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:-
(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the State Government and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to consider and grant the representations dated 2.6.2006, 15.4.2011 and 9.11.2011;
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that Town Planning Scheme No.21 - Ambawadi (2nd varied) in which the reservation is now made for Slum Upgradation Scheme by taking away the lands of the petitioners is patently bad and illegal and it may also be declared that the action on the part of the respondents to change the public purpose which was there in the original scheme, namely, for school and health centre and amalgamating the said lands in the Upgradation Scheme is patently bad and illegal and Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the said decisions;
(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the Plots in lieu of substantial loss of lands of the petitioners as mentioned in the representation dated 9.11.2011;
(d) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking away the possession of the lands in question from the petitioners;
(e) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the State Government and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to consider the representations dated 2.6.2006, 15.4.2011 and 9.11.2011;
(f) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the outset, Mr.Digant M.Popat, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioners are permitted to make a representation to the Secretary, Urban Housing and Urban Development Department (respondent No.1), who may be directed to be consider and decide the same within a time-bound period.
Upon the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the petitioners, the following order is passed:
The petitioners are at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.1 regarding the grievances voiced in the petition. In the event that the representation is made within a period of four weeks from today, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.
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.) (sunil) Top