Gujarat High Court
Shashinkumar Subhashchandra Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat on 11 November, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1213/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1213 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14966 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1213 of 2025
======================================
SHASHINKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA TRIVEDI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. DHRUVI S. TRIVEDI(18414) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and parties and perused the record.
2. Pertinent is to note that this intra-court appeal arises out Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:39:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1213/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined of the judgment and order dated 04.11.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to remove the sign board / hoarding in question, which has been installed contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short 'GPMC Act, 1949').
3. The learned Single Judge categorically records that prior permission of the Municipal Corporation is a mandatory requirement, which was not available with the petitioner. There is no dispute about the said fact. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that an application seeking permission of the Municipal Corporation has already been moved and till date, the same has not been decided in view of pendency of Special Civil Application No.9337 of 2005 filed by a third party seeking for removal of the sign board / hoarding put up by the appellant herein.
4. It is pointed out by Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - Municipal Corporation that in the Special Civil Application No.9337 of 2005, which is pending as on date, the relief, as prayed by the petitioner therein, is to issue a direction to the respondent - Municipal Corporation to act as per their notice dated 12.12.2024, which was issued to the petitioner in view of the installation of the sign board / hoarding without permission of the Corporation. The attention of the Court is invited to the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in the said Writ Petition wherein the learned Single Judge opined that it is open for the Municipal Corporation to act in accordance with the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:39:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1213/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined notice dated 12.12.2024. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has put in appearance in the pending Writ Petition.
5. In view of the above, the prayer is made in the present Appeal seeking for quashing of the judgment of the learned Single Judge issuing directions to the petitioner to remove the sign board / hoarding in question within a period of four days and in case of failure on the part of the petitioner, it is kept open for the Municipal Corporation to remove the same immediately thereafter.
6. The period described by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned for removal of the sign board / hoarding (four days) has already expired and on a query made by the Court, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is not in a position to submit that the directions contained in the judgment impugned have been complied with.
7. The present Appeal has been presented on 10.11.2025 and has been taken up today on an urgent mentioning made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. As the petitioner has not complied with the directions passed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge before presentation in the present Appeal and further that the sign board / hoarding in question has been put up in contravention of the provisions of the GPMC Act, 1949, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment impugned. The present Appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits. However, liberty rests with Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:39:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1213/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined the Municipal Corporation to deal with the application moved by the petitioner, if any, seeking permission after the petitioner removes the sign board / hoarding in question from the place where it is installed / re-erected at present.
8. We say so, inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot seek permission without complying with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is also open for the respondent - Municipal Corporation to take appropriate measures for removal of the sign board / hoarding, if the petitioner fails to remove the same within a period of 24 hours from today.
9. Connected Civil Application would not survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ. ) (D.N.RAY, J.) siji Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:39:05 IST 2025