SCA/13453/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13453 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? ========================================================= NARNARAYAN (MANSA) CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR KL PANDYA, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 10/07/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner- The SCA/13453/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT Narnarayan (Mansa) Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. through its Chairman Shri Amitbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, praying that, “A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11 th May 2007 (Annexure-B) declaring the same to be illegal, unjust, arbitrary and without competence, jurisdiction, authority and power”. 3. Short facts giving rise to the present petition are that there was an order passed by the Collector, ordering two things; viz. sealing of the premises and demolition of the premises, simultaneously. This order of the Collector is carried before the SSRD with an application for stay. The direction of the Collector was to demolish the premises in question within seven days. The Secretary (Appeals) did not pass any order on the stay application and hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 13390 of 2007, wherein the Court passed the following order: “Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. C.H. Vora, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Notice returnable on 12.6.07. In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo qua the properties that are subject matter of the petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.1 is directed to decide the stay application of the petitioner- Society SCA/13453/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT on or before 7.6.07. Direct service is permitted today.” When the notice issued by this Court was served to the SSRD, he passed the order under challenge, i.e. Annexure-'A' to this petition dated 18.05.2007, rejecting the stay application. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. 4. It is indeed shocking that the revisional authority has not applied its mind to the fact that if the subject matter of the revision- premises in question are demolished during the pendency of the revision, as the revisional authority has refused to grant stay, the revision will be rendered infructuous. It is this type of approach by the authority, which increases workload before the courts and the courts are constrained to interfere in such whimsical orders suffering from non-application of mind. 5. The order of the Collector is dated 11.5.2006. Revision was filed on 14.05.2006. If the revisional authority was so keen to dispose of the revision expeditiously, he could have done the same by ordering status quo to be maintained. By not ordering that maintenance of status quo, he forced the petitioner to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 13390 of 2007, during the pendency of which, the authority passed the order SCA/13453/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT under challenge on 18.05.2007, which again forced the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 13453 of 2007. What is ultimate gain by the revisional authority ? One gain which this Court is able to visualise is filing of two petitions by the petitioner before this Court. 6. In the result, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 24.05.2007 is ordered to continue for a period of ten days after the result of the revision application is communicated to the petitioner by Registered Post A.D. letter. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. At the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the revisional authority is directed to decide the revision as expeditiously as possibly, preferably within two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) omkar