SCA/29705/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29705 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= NATWARLAL DAHYABHAI MEHTA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JB PARDIWALA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS.KRINA CALLA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3, 5, MR NV ANJARIA for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 24/01/2008 SCA/29705/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) Rule. Ms.Krina Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2; and Mr.N.V. Anjaria, learned advocate waives service for respondents no.4 and 5. It is not necessary to hear respondent-Valsad Nagarpalika because no orders adverse to the said party are proposed to be passed. We accordingly proceed to take up the petition for final disposal. 2. The building permission granted by Valsad Municipality in favour of respondents no.4 and 5 was suspended by the Collector, Valsad under section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The said order was passed on the application which was filed by the present petitioner before the Collector, Valsad. Respondents no.4 and 5 challenged that order before the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Urban Development & Urban Housing Department. The Deputy Secretary (Appeals) exercising the appellate powers of the State Government quashed and set aside the order of the Collector, Valsad without joining the petitioner as a party-respondent and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the said decision of the State Government on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Mr.Pardiwala, learned advocate for the SCA/29705/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT petitioner therefore, submits that the order dated 15th November 2007 of the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) requires to be quashed and set aside. 3. Mr.Anjaria, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner has only 1/10th share in the property in question and that at present Civil Suits are also pending on the subject matter of the controversy. Mr.Anjaria further states that respondents no.4 and 5 have already completed construction on the ground floor of the land in question and that for the present, respondents no.4 and 5 do not propose to commence construction of the first floor. Mr.Anjaria therefore, submits that the petition may be dismissed. Ms.Krina Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 submits that the respondent-authorities will abide by the orders of this Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the Collector had exercised his powers under section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1960, at the instance of the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) ought not to have set aside the order of the Collector without joining the petitioner as a party-respondent and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. SCA/29705/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT 5. On this short ground above, viz. violation of principles of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order dated 15th November 2007 of the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) and remand the matter to the State Government. The present petitioner shall be joined as a party-respondent in the appeal which will now be pending before the State Government and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the matter after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties including present respondents no.4 and 5 and the present petitioner. We clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy between the parties. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no orders as to costs. (M.S. SHAH, J.) (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim