Gujarat High Court
SCA/5151/1987 of DILIPKUMAR LAXMIDAS Vs UPADHYAYA on 19 July 1995
Decision: 19th July 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5151 of 1987 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see
���Date of Decision: 19th July 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5151 of 1987
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No
-------------------------------------------------------------Shri P.M. Raval, Advaocate, for the Petitioner Shri K.C. Shah, Asst. Government Pleader, for RespondentsNos. 1 to 4
Shri V.S. Mehta, Advocate, for Responent No. 5-------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(19th July 1995)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The action of removal of the cabin of the petitionernear the bus stand of village Talala by and on behalf of therespondents is under challenge in this petition under Art.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. As transpiring from theaffidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat ofTalala (respondent No.5 herein), the petitioner's cabin isplaced on the junction of five roads near the PanchayatBhavan. His situation is similar to that of the cabins ofthe petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 3589 of1982 decided on 5th August 1994 by the Division Benchcomprising of M.B. Shah and M.R. Calla, JJ. M.B. Shah,J.speaking for the Division Bench has held therein that thepetitioners were not entitled to run their business in cabinsor lorries at that place. Sitting as a single Judge, I ambound by the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this court.Even otherwise I am in respectful agreement therewith.
3. Shri Raval for the petitioner has raised a grievanceabout a very high-handed action of removal of thepetitioner's cabin on the part of the respondents. Accordingto the petitioner, as stated in para 4 of the memo of hispetition, the manner and method of removal resulted insubstantial loss to him. It is not necessary to deal withthe submission in that regard as it would constitute adisputed question of fact. In absence of anyaffidavit-in-reply, averments made in para 4 of the memo ofthis petition would certainly go to show that the manner andmethod of removal of the petitioner's cabin would smack ofhigh-handedness on the part of the concerned authorities.However, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of thecase as respondent No.5 panchayat has agreed to provide analternative place in the shopping centre fixed by it.Allotment of a place in the shopping centre in lieu of thepetitioner's cabin or galla on the highway would more thanadequately compensate the petitioner for the alleged losssuffered by him on removal of his cabin. The petitioner willhave to make representation to respondent No. 5 in thatregard and such representation, as and when made, wouldcertainly be considered by respondent No. 5 on meritsaccording to law.
4. In the result, this petition fails. It is herebyrejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as tocosts. The interim relief stands vacated.
5. At the oral request of Shri Raval for the petitioner,the interim relief is ordered to continue till 31st August1995 to enable the petitioner to tide over the monsooncrisis.
6. It would be open to the petitioner to apply for alternative place in the shopping centre referred to in theaffidavit-in-reply filed by and on behalf of respondent No.
����----------sca.5151.87hn