Gujarat High Court
SCA/4759/1995 of BARODA CITY BAKERY Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 19 October 1995
1 Date of Decision: 19th October 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4759 of 1995 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
-#-
.FO 1
���Date of Decision: 19th October 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4759 of 1995
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.B. Majmudar, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri S.P. Dave, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for the Respondents---------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.
(Date: 19th October 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 order passed by and on behalf of the State ofGujarat (respondent No.1 herein) on 7th December 1994 rejectingthe petitioner's application for exemption under sec. 20(1) ofthe Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act forbrief) is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution of India.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. It maybe sufficient to note thatthe petitioner applied for exemption under sec. 20(1) of theAct with respect to one parcel of land bearing Survey No.161/1/B admeasuring 11639 square meters situated within theurban agglomeration of Vadodara. That application came to berejected by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 by the orderpassed on 7th December 1994. Its copy is at Annexure A to thispetition. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this court bymeans of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for questioning its correctness.
3. The ground given for rejection of the petitioner'sapplication appears to be non-production of certain documents byor on behalf of the petitioner despite grant of opportunitiesfor the purpose from time to time. The petitioner has producedat Annexure B to this petition a copy of one letter of 26thJanuary 1994 addressed to the authority empowered to takedecision with respect to the petitioner's application. Ittranspires therefrom that the petitioner has produced severaldocuments including the building permission and the approvedplan with respect to the construction raised on the land inquestion. It also transpires therefrom that the necessaryzoning certificate was also sent and it is explained in whatcapacity the petitioner was holding the land. The grievancevoiced by or on behalf of the petitioner before this court isthat, despite producing all these materials, the author of theimpugned order at Annexure A to this petition has not at allreferred to them in his impugned order.
4. It transpires from the impugned order at Annexure A tothis petition that the materials referred to by or on behalf ofthe petitioner in his letter at Annexure B to this petition donot find mention in the impugned order. It appears that theauthor of the order at Annexure A to this petition has not takeninto consideration the documents referred to by the petitionerin his letter at Annexure B to this petition. In that view ofthe matter, there is hesitation in coming to the conclusion thatthe impugned order at Annexure A to this petition suffers fromthe vice of non-application of mind on the part of its author.Such order cannot be sustained in law.
5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the impugned order at Annexure A to this petition cannot besustained in law. It has to be quashed and set aside. Thematter will have to be remanded to respondent No. 1 forrestoration of the proceeding to file and for its fresh decisionaccording to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner and after taking into consideration all the relevantmaterials produced by the petitioner.
6. In the result, this petition is accepted. The orderpassed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat (respondent No.1herein) on 7th December 1994 at Annexure A to this petition isquashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondentNo.1 for restoration of the proceeding to file and for its freshdisposal according to law in the light of this judgment of mine.Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent withno order as to costs.---------