1. After hearing the petitioner, this Court passed below quoted order on 12.01.2015.
"Heard Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner.
It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was granted a lease for land bearing City Survey No.1311 of Halol Town by the State Government, for a period of fifty years. He had constructed a superstructure on the land in question. After the demise of his father, the petitioner made a construction upon the land in question, after obtaining the permission of the Municipality. Thereafter, on 28.05.1986, the applied to the State Government for renewal of the lease for a further period of fifty years. During the pendency of the application, the petitioner made a construction on the land in question, after demolishing the earlier construction. This was done with the prior permission of the Halol Municipality. It is submitted that without any prior notice and without following any procedure, the petitioner has Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/461/2015 ORDER been served with the impugned notice dated 26.11.2014, asking him to remove his construction within a period of seven days. That it appears that this action has been taken at the behest of a third party, behind the back of the petitioner.
Issue Notice and Notice as to interim relief, returnable on 29.01.2015.
Adinterim relief in terms of paragraph8(b) is granted, till then."
2. Subsequently below quoted order came to be passed on 11.02.2015.
M " r.V.G. Dave, learned advocate, states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent Halol Municipality and prays for time in order to file the Vakalatnama and affidavit in reply. List on 03.03.2015.
The adinterim relief granted earlier, shall continue, till then."
3. Even after the said order dated 11.02.2015, no one appeared at the time of hearing and any appearance was also not filed.
4. Having regard to the said position emerging from the Court, the Court passed order dated 26.03.2015, whereby the office was directed to issue fresh notice to the respondents. The order dated 26.03.2015 reads thus:- 1
" . Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/461/2015 ORDER that the impugned order dated 26.11.2014 is issued without any notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that without assigning and recording any reason justifying the decision to cancel the building permission, the impugned order is passed.
2. It appears from the record that earlier Mr.V.G. Dave, learned advocate had informed the Court that he appear on behalf of the respondent municipality.
3. This aspect is recorded by the Court in the order dated 11.2.2015.
4. However, since then, until now, no one has entered appearance and the Court is asked to adjourn the hearing of the petition because any appearance is not filed on behalf of the respondent municipality. In this view of the matter, following order is passed.
5. Office shall issue Fresh Notice to the respondent municipality with clear intimation to the respondent municipality to enter appearance if it wants to oppose the petition and defend its action. It may also be mentioned in the notice that no one has entered appearance on behalf of the municipality and if any appearance is not entered and if any reply is not filed, then appropriate order is passed in absence of the municipality.
5. As additional mode of service, i.e. in addition to the normal mode of service, Notice to be forwarded by Registered Speed Post. Notice to be returnable on 9.4.2015.
7. If any ad-interim relief is in operation, the same will continue till then."
6. Even after the said order, no one has entered appearance for the respondent though served.
7. Today also, there is no opposition against Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/461/2015 ORDER the petition.
8. In this situation, following order is passed:-
RULE Ad-interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 12.01.2015 will continue until final hearing or until any other or further order is passed.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Girish Page 4 of 4