ANAND MUNICIPALITY Vs. NAVJEEVAN PULSE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenge the interim relief granted in terms of paragraph 12(B) of the petition filed by the respondents which reads as follows :

(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the declaration sought in paragraph 12(AA) of the petition to the effect that the preliminary and final scheme as sanctioned by the State Government in relation to final plot No. 131 (85) were ultra vires, bad in law and unenforceable and that the proceedings adopted by the Town Planning Officer were without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Referring to ground (J) of the petition, it was submitted that the challenge against the scheme was made on the ground that the scheme was violative of the fundamental and other rights of the appellants petitioners guaranteed by Article 14, 19 and 301A of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a jurisdictional error in his finding given in paragraph 9 of the impugned order while stating that the challenge, in substance, was a challenge not against the provisions of the statute and therefore, a Single Judge could entertain the petition and it need not be placed before a Division Bench, as was sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that the observation of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 that the matter was not being finally disposed of as stated by Rule 2 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, and therefore, it could be entertained by the learned Single Judge, was contrary to the Rules.

(3.) Rule 2 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 enumerates the matters which can be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court. As stated in sub-rule 10, the learned Single Judge can dispose of the applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except those which are enumerated thereunder. Under clause (i) of sub-rule (10) of Rule 2, the applications under Article 226 where vires of any provision of a statute challenged, by a learned Single Judge.