Gitaben Raychandbhai Vaghela vs Commissioner, Municipalities ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3216 Guj

         C/LPA/274/2021                                     ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 274 of 2021

          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 670 of 2021

                               With
             CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
            In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 274 of 2021
==========================================================
            GITABEN RAYCHANDBHAI VAGHELA
                          Versus
COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPALITIES ADMINISTRATION,GUJARAT STATE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ANAND V THAKKAR(7091) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No.
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
        NATH
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                          Date : 24/02/2021

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

We have heard Mr. Chitrajeet Upadhyay, Advocate for Mr. Anand V. Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dipan Desai, leaned counsel for the private respondents.

After arguing to some length, Mr. Upadhyay states that this appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open

C/LPA/274/2021 ORDER

to the appellants and also to the opposite parties to cooperate before the Commissioner of Municipalities (Respondent No.1) who has to take a fresh decision pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge within four weeks from the date of the judgment, i.e. before 5th February, 2021. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate, upon instructions states that his client would extend all cooperation in the decision making by the respondent No.1 and they would not seek any undue adjournments and make full and complete endeavor so that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are fully complied with in letter and spirit. Mr. Upadhyay, Advocate would also ensure that his clients would cooperate in the proceeding before the Commissioner.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) A.M. PIRZADA