Kishorbhai Daulatbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5454 Guj

       C/SCA/10688/2020                                              CAV JUDGMENT




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10688 of 2020
                                With
           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10777 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

======================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the

interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

====================================== KISHORBHAI DAULATBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ====================================== Appearance:

MR PRIT U SHAH(11054) for the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 MS NIDHI M SHETH(11043) for the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 MR. K.M. ANTANI, AGP (1) for the Respondent No. 1 MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent No. 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 ======================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 07/05/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar appearing for the

petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for the respondent no.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent - State through video conference.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent - State, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.3. By consent of the learned advocates for the parties, matters are taken­up for final hearing.

2. In both the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 18th June, 2020 issued by the State Government for inclusion of the village Segva Syadla within the limits of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

3. By these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing and setting aside the impugned notification dated 18.06.2020 issued by the State Government (at Annexure­D hereto) as far as Village Segva Syadla is concerned;

(B) During pendency and final disposal of the present application, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned notification dated 18.06.2020 issued by the State Government (at Annexure­D hereto) as far as village Segva Syadla is concerned;

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;"

4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar submitted that the issue involved in these petitions is similar to the issues involved in group of writ petitions being Special Civil Application no.7002 of 2020 and allied matters, which are heard together. It was therefore, submitted that the same submissions are required to be considered with respect to these two petitions also.

5. The above statement is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani.

6. This Court has passed the detailed order in Special Civil Application no.7002 of 2020 and allied matters today and following the same these petitions are also disposed of. In Special Civil Application no.7002 of 2020 and other allied matters, it is held that in view of the settled legal position, though the Gram panchayats, where the petitioners are staying are not entitled to an opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that no effective consultation was made by the respondent authorities as provided in Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and accordingly the petitions were dismissed and notice was discharged.

7. Similarly, adopting the same reasoning in these petitions also, the same are dismissed and Rule is discharged.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.) AMAR RATHOD...