1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, with the following prayers:
"(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) This Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents herein to provide suitable alternative accommodation in view of voluntary demolition in pursuance to the notice dated 18.3.2005 within the time period as may be deemed fit and expedient by this Honourable Court to the petitioner in the interest of justice;
And/or (C) This Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents herein to provide just compensation or damages towards the demolished property being shop in the name of Banarasi Pan and Cold Drinks situated at Udhna in the interest of justice by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(D) Any other and further order/s that may be deemed fit may kindly be passed in the interest of justice may kindly be granted by this Hon'ble Court."
2. Briefly stated, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was running a small Pan-Shop selling cold drinks and Banarasi-Pan in Revenue Survey Nos.384 and 385 paiki, situated at Village Udhna, for which a certificate had been issued by the respondent-Surat Municipal Corporation on 09.03.2008. The construction put up by the petitioner was demolished after issuance of notice dated 18.03.2005, under Section 212 (1)(A) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, as it was covered under the project of Bus Rapid Transport System. The petitioner had voluntarily demolished a portion of his property on 03.05.2011 and rest of it was demolished by the officer of the respondent-Corporation, thereafter. As the petitioner was not provided with alternative accommodation or paid compensation, he has approached this Hon'ble Court by preferring the present petition.
3. Mr.Vaibhav N. Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that though the petitioner has made two representations to the Competent Authority of the respondent-Corporation, there has been no response to the same, therefore, he may be permitted to make a fresh representation along with requisite documents and the respondent-Corporation may be directed to consider and decide the same, within a stipulated period of time.
4. Mr.Kaushal D. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondents, has submitted that in the event that the petitioner makes a fresh representation accompanied by the necessary documents, the same shall be considered and decided, within a reasonable period of time.
5. Upon the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following order is passed:
In the event that the petitioner makes a representation to the Director of Planning, Surat Municipal Corporation, the Director shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. 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