1. Heard Mr. Rashesh S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Dipan A. Desai for the petitioners, Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate seeks permission to delete respondent No.5 as far as this petition is concerned. As reported by Mr. Sanjanwala, respondent No.5 has been served but he has not appeared.
2. What is challenged in the present petition is the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No.MVV/BKHP/Anand/1/2010, whereby the application for interim injunction pending the Revision Application was rejected.
3. The aforesaid order is challenged by way of this writ petition, wherein this Court (Coram: Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) vide order dated 25.1.2012 passed the following order:-
"Heard Mr.Rashesh Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Dipan A.Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner - Trust has constructed a School building on a portion of the land in question, regarding which revision application has been filed by the petitioners before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, which is pending. That, in the interregnum, the application for grant of stay has been rejected by the impugned order. The petitioners apprehend that in the absence of a stay order, the construction of the School building may be demolished by the respondent-authorities.
Issue Notice returnable on 07.02.2012.
By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that status-quo, qua the School building is maintained till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service for respondents Nos.1 to 4, is permitted."
4. Today when the matter is called out for further hearing, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the Secretary (Appeals) has fixed the aforesaid Revision Application for its final hearing on 12.7.2012.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, interest of justice would be served if the order of status-quo granted by this Court vide order dated 25.1.2012 is extended till final hearing of the Revision Application. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and on the basis of the facts narrated in the aforesaid order dated 25.1.2012, it is extended as the main Revision Application is now fixed for hearing on 12.7.2012.
6. The Secretary (Appeals), therefore, is directed to decide the aforesaid appeal which is fixed on 12.7.2012 on its own merits without being influenced by the order dated 25.1.2012 as well as the present order. Mr. Rashesh S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Dipan A. Desai for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for respondent No.3 assure this Court that no time shall be asked for on 12.7.2012, except under unavoidable circumstance and the parties shall cooperate with the revisional authority to dispose of the main Revision Application as fixed.
7. With these observations, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top