IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5700 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- KISHORBHAI JAGJIVANDAS NATHWANI Versus JAI BUILDERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM THRO.PARTNER -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 5700 of 2003 MR HRIDAY BUCH for Petitioner No. 1 MS YAMINI J DESAI for Respondent No. 1-4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date of decision: 23/07/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Mr.Buch, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that pursuant to the last order dated 19-7-2003 passed by this Court, the petitioner enquired into the matter and he came to know that the legality and validity of the plan sanctioned by the Municipality was challenged by the Society by preferring application under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act before the District Collector and the District Collector has rejected the said application as per the decision dated 29-7-2002. He submitted that as per his information the Society has challenged the same, but in any event the petitioner is desirous to challenge the said decision of the District Collector before the State Government by preferring revision under Section 264 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, since the petitioner who is a neighbour is aggrieved by the decision of the Collector and, therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a view to approach before the State Government for challenging the order of the Collector dated 29-7-2002. 2. Permission granted. Disposed of as withdrawn. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier deserves to be vacated. However, the ad-interim relief granted earlier shall remain in operation upto 1-8-2003. It is needless to clarify that the State Government shall be at liberty to take independent view on the basis of the material available with it and shall decide the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced, by the withdrawal of the present petition. 23-7-2003 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod