(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. Though Board has been revised, no one appears for the respondent though name of M/S RJ Raval Associates and Ms. Shivya Desai is shown on the Board.
2. We have heard Mr H.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant. This LPA has been filed challenging the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15021 of 2011. Earlier the petitioners have filed Special Civil Application No.2446 of 2011 which was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 10.3.2011. The operative part of the order as mentioned in para 9 is extracted as under:
“9. If that be so, and if the petitioners have already made requests, then it goes without saying that the corporation would take appropriate decision keeping in mind its policy as well as its administrative exigencies. Except the aforesaid observations any direction cannot be passed. However, the court would be loath to issue directions in such administrative matters and that too so as to ask the corporation to take a particular type of decision and in time limit which the court may fix. In my view, such direction cannot be issued.”
In compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners have made representation dated 6.5.2011, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 'M' to the writ petition. In spite of the representation having been made, it has not been decided by respondent No.1. The petitioners thus filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 15021 of 2011 wherein it was prayed that representation of the petitioners have not yet been decided as directed by this Court. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 11.10.2011 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no time limit was fixed in the earlier judgment of this court and no direction can be issued for deciding the matter in a fixed time limit. The learned Single Judge also made certain observations on the merits of the case and dismissed the writ petition summarily.
3. We are of the opinion that since the representation has been filed by the petitioners on 6.5.2011, it was expected from the respondents to comply with the judgment of this court and decide the representation within a reasonable time limit. Since the representation had not been decided, the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 15021 of 2011. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was not correct in observing that no direction can be issued by this court. As a matter of fact, no time limit was earlier fixed by this court and if reasonable time elapses, it was open to the learned Single Judge to pass a time bound order fixing time limit with which representation of the petitioners could have been decided by respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.10.2011 cannot be maintained.
4. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.
The order dated 11.10.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.15021 of 2011 is set aside. Direction is issued to respondent No.1-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioners at Annexures 'M' to the Special Civil Application in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No.1.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.] [G. B. SHAH, J.] msp