NOORMOHAMMED RAJEBHAI KOTWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties are heard.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Application are that the petitioners were carrying on the business of a grocer in grocery items and other provisional items at Mahudi Bhagole, Dabhoi, District: Vadodara. They had entered into a kiosk, a small pacca construction, as tenants and had also obtained a valid license under the Shops and Establishments Act, issued by respondent No.2. According to the petitioners, the shops were not creating any traffic nuisance nor were creating any hindrances to the free flow of traffic. Even then, the respondent No.2 without any authority of law had removed the said construction and had seized the material lying in the said shop. This action was taken on 1st November, 1998. According to the petitioners, the goods are still in possession of respondent No.2 and under the law, they are obliged to return back the goods; they have not returned the same. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had issued a legal notice through their Advocate, Shri L.B. Kolekar, but, the respondents did not return the goods. The petitioners are praying that the action of the respondents be held to be illegal, respondent No.2 be directed to restore the said construction, a direction be issued to the respondents restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioners.

(3.) SHRI Adhvaryu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of the petition, submits that the property belonged to their landlord and without making any enquiry and without appropriate notice to the present petitioners, the respondents could not demolish the construction. So far as the title of the property is concerned, it is the only say of the petitioners that the property belonged to a third party. Neither the said third party has been joined as party respondent or party petitioner, nor the title deed, rent note/lease deed/rent receipt, etc. have been filed on the record. In a case like the present, if the property belonged to the third party, then, the petitioners were required to join such person as party petitioner or respondent or at least ask such person to provide necessary documents to show that the property belonged to the said third party and was leased out to the present petitioners. In absence of such documents, the petitioners would not be allowed to raise this dispute.