SHARIFBHAI HASAMBHAI SAKARYANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhaskar Tanna, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, we may note that Mr. Tanna, learned senior counsel has made certain submissions on the observations made in the order dtd. 17/1/2025 with respect to the manner in which the matter was proceeded with by Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Tanna, learned senior counsel representing the views of the Bar being the senior member of the Bar would also submit that lawyer cannot ask the Court for recusal from the case just because the Court is not accepting the views of the lawyer. Having heard that, noticing that Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner expressed his regret over the incident, as to whatever happened in the Court on 17/1/2025, and gave assurance that such occurrence will not be repeated in future, we deem it fit and proper to expunge the remarks made against the conduct of Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi on 17/1/2025 in our oral order dtd. 17/1/2025.

(2.) Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioner seeks withdrawal of both the applications namely Civil Application No.2 of 2025 and Civil Application No.3 of 2025 filed on 29/1/2025. Both the applications are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) Coming on the merits of the case, having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note that the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the year 2011 by the petitioner who was a Municipal Councillor in Dhoraji Nagarpalika, making a grievance with respect to certain constructions raised by the private respondent Nos. 8 to 20, with the contention that the constructions in question are all illegal and unauthorised. Prayer has been made in the writ petition to issue a writ of direction commanding the respondent-authorities to take action against the persons who had raised illegal constructions, impleaded as respondent Nos. 8 to 20.