THAKARSHIBHAI KARSHANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Shri Nikunt Raval, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents nos. 6 to 20.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14/09/2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Choriyasi Prant, Surat granting retrospective permission of sale under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act in favour of respondent no. 6 and other companies i. e. respondents nos. 7 to 20.

(3.) AFTER the matter was argued for some time, Shri A. J. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 6 to 20-original applicants, who submitted the application before the Deputy Collector, Choriyasi Prant, Surat for granting post facto permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, has stated at the bar that respondents nos. 6 to 20-original applicants hereby withdraw the application submitted before the Deputy Collector, Choriyasi Prant, Surat, which was submitted for granting post facto permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, and, therefore, it is submitted that once the original application itself is withdrawn, the impugned order/decision dated 14/09/2007 shall not survive and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.