VIKRAMSINH BHARATSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs.:

(2.) THE broad facts of the case of the petitioner are that there were certain shops constructed on the road illegally outside City Survey Nos.818 to 821 opposite the main railway junction at Rajkot City around in the year 2005 - 2006 and subsequently, the same were demolished by respondent No.2 on 31.1.2008 as the same were admittedly illegal encroachments and were on the road. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequently, respondent No.2 had offered alternative places for construction of such shops as per resolution of respondent No.1 dated 17.6.1976. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter, shop occupiers had filed suits before the Civil Court at Rajkot being Regular Civil Suit No.51 of 2008 and allied matters and thereafter the matter went upto this Court being Special Civil Application No.4242 of 2010 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1694 of 2010. As per the case of the petitioner, the aforesaid suits are pending till date before the concerned Civil Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.2 an attempt is made by respondent No.2 to permit the shopkeepers to once again construct the shops which were earlier demolished since the same were constructed on a public road. It is stated by the petitioner that the said proposal of respondent No.2 was placed before the Standing Committee for passing appropriate resolution and vide resolution dated 14.06.2013, the Standing Committee had approved such proposal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

(3.) HEARD Mr.Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Parth M.Raval, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP for respondent No.1, Mr.Hriday Buch, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Tushar L.Sheth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7.