Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1400 (GUJ)

Khatki Wad Masjid Trust v. State of Gujarat

2017-08-09

B.N.KARIA, M.R.SHAH

body2017
ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. Shri. Pranav Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant - original respondent no. 5 has vehemently submitted that in the main petition original petitioners suppressed the material fact of having filed the suit for the very relief, which was prayed in the petition and the suit being dismissed, First Appeal against the same was preferred, which is pending. It is submitted that therefore as such the main petition itself was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material fact. It is submitted that even otherwise though the main Special Civil Application was preferred in the year 2015 and thereafter the matter was adjourned time and again, no ad-interim relief was presssed by the original petitioners and all of a sudden after a period of approximately one year and six months of filing the main petition, Civil Application for interim relief was preferred and though it was pointed out that the construction in question i.e. Urinal/bathroom was constructed and being used since last 10 years, learned Single Judge by the impugned order has directed the Chief Officer to close the Urinal/bathroom with the seal. It is submitted that therefore by granting such an interim relief virtually the learned Single Judge has granted the main relief and that to in a petition, which was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material fact. NOTICE for final disposal returnable on 04/09/2017. 2. Shri. Pranav Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge on 01/08/2017 and the copy of the same was received on 08/08/2017 and immediately Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 5363/2017 and despite the fact that the applicant informed the Chief Officer not to seal the Urinal/bathroom as the Letters Patent Appeal is being preferred, without even waiting for a day, Chief Officer has put the seal and closed the Urinal/bathroom, which were being used since last 10 years and which were being used by the persons who visited the dargah. 3. 3. Having heard Shri. Pranav Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and considering the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are prima facie of the opinion that the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted such an interim relief, which is granted in the application, more particularly, when according to the applicant herein even the main petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material fact and more particularly when the Urinal/bathroom were being used since last 10 years and for which even the suit was filed in the year 2007, which was dismissed against which First Appeal is pending. Under the circumstances, by way of ad-interim relief, further execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is stayed. Consequently, the Chief Officer of Navsari Nagarpalika is hereby directed to remove the seal, which is put pursuant to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is stayed by this Court. 4. Direct service is permitted today.