Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 412 (GUJ)

SAGAR ENTERPRISE v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2004-07-01

M.R.SHAH

body2004
M. R. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) WHAT is challenged in the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226/227 is the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 6. 11. 2003 in Revision Application No. 1 of 2003 in vacating the interim relief granted earlier which was granted during the pendency and final disposal of the Revision Application No. 1 of 2003. ( 2 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad dated 29. 5. 2003, the petitioner had preferred Revision Application before the Revisional Authority i. e. Learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad being Revision Application No. 1 of 2003. In the said revision application, the petitioner had also submitted an application for stay and it seems that the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad was stayed on the condition and on the assurance given by the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that they would not start hotel/restaurant and that status quo with regard to residential building will be maintained. The said interim relief was granted on 13. 6. 2003. It seems that the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad made a report to the Revisional Authority that the petitioner has not acted as per the assurance given by their advocate on the basis of which the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad was stayed and therefore, relying upon the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straightway, the Revisional Authority i. e. Learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad by its order dated 6. 11. 2003 vacated the interim relief granted on 13. 6. 2003 by holding that the petitioner is running hotel/restaurant contrary to the interim order dated 13. 6. 2003. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 passed by the Learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in vacating the interim relief granted earlier on 13. 6. 2003, the present Special Civil Application has been filed. ( 3 ) SHRI J. R. Nanavaty, Learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that before passing the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 and before vacating the interim relief granted earlier, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. 6. 2003, the present Special Civil Application has been filed. ( 3 ) SHRI J. R. Nanavaty, Learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that before passing the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 and before vacating the interim relief granted earlier, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. He has also further submitted that even the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad relying upon which, the interim order has been vacated and the order dated 6. 11. 2003 has been passed, is also not served upon the petitioner. If the petitioner would have been given a copy of the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad relying upon which, the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 is passed, then the petitioner would have controverted the same. However, as no opportunity of hearing has been given, the petitioner has not been able to controvert the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad. ( 4 ) SHRI Sud, Ld. AGP appearing on behalf of the State Government as well as Shri H. S. Munshaw, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad considering the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 has submitted that as before passing the order dated 6. 11. 2003, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, the matter may be remanded to the Learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad for deciding the question with regard to vacating the interim relief afresh. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, considering the fact that before passing the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003, neither the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard nor the petitioner was given a copy of the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad relying upon which the Learned Special Secretary has passed the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 and as the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 is against the principles of natural justice, the said order requires to be quashed and set aside. Before passing the impugned order dated 6. 11. 11. 2003 and as the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 is against the principles of natural justice, the said order requires to be quashed and set aside. Before passing the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 and before vacating the interim relief granted, the petitioner was required to be heard and given an opportunity to controvert why the interim relief granted earlier should not be vacated on the ground that there is a breach of the condition committed by the petitioner and a breach of the interim order. It seems that while passing the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003, the Learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad has relied upon the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad. Admittedly, the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, is not given to the petitioner. If the petitioner would have been given a copy of the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad then the petitioner would have controverted and would have pointed out that whether the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad is correct or not. Under the circumstances, as the impugned order is passed without supplying the report given by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad, relying upon which the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 has been passed, the impugned order dated 6. 11. 20003 is against the principles of natural justice. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2003 in vacating the interim relief granted earlier on 13. 6. 2003 in Revision Application No. 1 of 2003 is quashed and set aside on the ground that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded to the Learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad for deciding the question with regard to vacating of interim relief afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after giving a copy of the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Valsad so that the petitioner can meet with the same. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order so to costs. Such exercise of hearing may be completed by the Revisional Authority within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order so to costs. Such exercise of hearing may be completed by the Revisional Authority within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. It will be open for the petitioner to move an application for early hearing of the revision application itself and the same may be considered by the Revisional Authority. .