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
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
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
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
