Gujarat High Court
Parshottambhai Nagjibhai Prajapati vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 7 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 8 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 9 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5818 of 2019
==========================================================
PARSHOTTAMBHAI NAGJIBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 7
MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,8,9
MR MR RAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR GA VAGHELA FOR M/S
RJ RAWAL ASSOC.(1987) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHIVYA A DESAI(5478) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioners, learned senior advocate Mr.Maulin Rawal with Mr.Vaghela for Rawal Associates for the respondent. Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 23:04:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined
2. After arguing for some time, learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioners, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the petition being Special Civil Application No.319 of 2015 qua respondent nos.7 and 10. Permission is granted. This petition is withdrawn qua respondent nos.7 and 10.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya further submitted that for rest of the petitioners, he has tendered copy of the note in the Registry in the year 2020 for withdrawal of his appearance. However, from the perusal of the record, no such note is found.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Rawal has pointed out that the decision which is taken earlier is pursuant to old policy and thereafter there is change in policy which is challenged by proceedings which are decided by the coordinate Bench, thereafter by Letters Patent Appeal and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Rawal has also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal No.10145 of 2023 dated 12.5.2023, which reads as under:
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 23:04:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined "We have heard Ms.Tanya Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioners are length.
However, considering the implication for public interest in granting the prayer for the petitioners, we see no reason to disturb the decision of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition accordingly stand dismissed. However, on the prayer of the petitioners' counsel, four weeks time is granted to vacate the quarters in possession of the petitioners subject to filing the usual undertaking before this Court within one week from today, stating that the petitioners shall not create any third party rights, will clear all rent/dues, if any, in the meanwhile and will voluntarily vacate the premises within stipulated time. On expiry of four weeks, the petitioners are expected to handover peaceful vacant possession of the quarters. Otherwise, the Police help may be taken for clearing the quarters.
With the above order, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed."
6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, whereby the petitioners who were employees of the Corporation have retired and are still occupying the quarters, now, in view of the settled position of law that after retirement, quarters are not required to be occupied by the retired employee after a permissible period, the prayers Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 23:04:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined in the petition which are specifically for the reduction of sale consideration are not required to be considered any further. However, it is open for the petitioners to make necessary representation if they want to make, before the authority in accordance with law, which may be considered appropriately by the authority if it is permissible under the law.
7. In view of this, these petitions are disposed of without discussing anything on merits. It is expected that the principle laid down in the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned hereinabove, though passed in another set of petitions, shall be complied with in its true letters and spirit. Civil Applications also stand disposed of.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the earlier decision of the Corporation, the petitioners nos.7 and 10 have already deposited the amount. It is open for the petitioner nos.7 and 10 to claim refund of the said amount since the prayers prayed for in this petition are not granted by this Court.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 23:04:50 IST 2025