Gujarat High Court
Mohmmad Shabbaz Hanif Mandali vs State Of Gujarat on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/84/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 84 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19895 of 2019
=============================================
MOHMMAD SHABBAZ HANIF MANDALI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR JIMIT P SHAH(9917) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.BHANUKUMAR B AGRAWAL(10031) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 03/10/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge wherein from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (in short as 'AMC'), it
was noted that action was taken for demolition of some
illegal constructions/structures carried out by the
petitioner and they were demolished after following due
process of law. It was also noted by the learned Single
Judge that prompted by this action of the Corporation,
prima facie it appears that the petitioner has filed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/84/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
Writ petition to settle private disputes between himself
and other members of the society.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
constructions raised by the petitioner were legal and
were similar to that raised by other members of the
society. However, on account of the dispute between
the Chairman of the society and the petitioner,
complaint was lodged and the legal constructions raised
by the petitioner were illegally demolished. The
petitioner, therefore, filed the present Writ petition to
seek a writ of mandamus commanding the Corporation
(AMC) to take action for demolition of all illegal
constructions built-up on the premises of the respondent
no.3 society. It was argued that it has come to the
knowledge of the petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply filed
by the Corporation that the notices have been issued to
the occupants/owners of different premises in the society
for demolition of illegal constructions raised by them.
The submission is that the petitioner has been singled
out at the behest of the Chairman of the society and
others have been saved due to collusion of the society
and the Corporation.
3. Taking note of the above submissions, pertinent is to
note that the petitioner has not challenged the action of
the Corporation in demolition of the constructions raised
by him. There is no such prayer in the Writ petition and
hence, plea taken by the petitioner that the
constructions raised by him were legal and wrongly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/84/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
demolished by the Corporation is not entertainable.
4. As regards the plea of discrimination, i.e. the petitioner
being singled out and other constructions having been
saved, suffice it to note that none of the
owners/occupiers of such constructions are impleaded in
the Writ petition. The prayer of mandamus has been
sought against private persons who are not party to the
Writ petition. The relief as prayed for cannot be
granted.
5. Lastly, on the asking of the Court as to how action could
be taken against those who are not party to the Writ
petition, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the factum of issuance of notice by the
Corporation to the other illegal structures raised by the
members of the society came to the knowledge of the
petitioner with the affidavit filed by the Corporation
before the Writ court. However, the fact remains that
even at that stage, the petitioner has not impleaded any
one, viz. any of the owner or occupier of the illegal
construction.
6. No benefit can be derived from the observations made
by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment and
order dated 12.10.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 117 of 2018, relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
7. For the aforesaid, no infirmity can be found in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/84/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
opinion drawn by the learned single Judge for dismissal
of the Writ petition.
8. The present appeal is dismissed, being misconceived.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
