SAGAR ENTERPRISE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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.