AMBALAL NATHALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by and on behalf of the District Panchayat at Mehsana (respondent No. 2 herein) on 30/01/1984 rejecting the application made by the petitioners for grant of what is popularly known as the N.A. Permission with respect to one parcel of land bearing plot No. 183 situated in Barsan taluka Kalol (the disputed land for convenience) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition. It would be sufficient to note that the petitioners applied to respondent No. 2 for grant of the N.A. Permission qua the disputed land. A copy of that application is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that, in its Executive Committee Meeting held on 25/01/1984, the application made by the petitioners was considered and by a Resolution passed therein it was decided to reject that application. A copy of the Minutes of the aforesaid Meeting of the Executive Committee of respondent No. 2 is at Annexure-B to this petition. Pursuant thereto, the order rejecting the application for the N.A. Permission made by the petitioners was passed on 30/01/1984. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

(3.) The ground given for rejection of the application for the N.A. Permission made by the petitioners is that the State Government directed respondent No. 2 not to grant any N.A. Permission with respect to any land situated in the Khakharia Tapa zone of talukas Kadi and Kalol. It thus becomes clear that the application for the N.A. Permission made by the petitioners was not considered on its own merits. It has been decided at the behest of or under the dictation of the State Government. It would mean that the discretion on the part of respondent No. 2 was forfeited to the State Government or it was abdicated in favour of the State Government. It is a settled principle of law that an order at the behest of or under the order of any superior authority is no order in the eyes of taw.