Gujarat High Court
Shakuntala Madhusudan Jain Wd/O ... vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 12 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14887 of 2025
==========================================================
SHAKUNTALA MADHUSUDAN JAIN WD/O MADHUSUDAN JAIN
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHRIKAR H BHATT(2573) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR G H VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with
MR S. H VIRK, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed seeking prayers: -
"a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ quashing the
notice dated 02.02.2009 (Ann:B) issued
by Respondent No. 2 and any
subsequent demolition action by the
Respondents.
b. Notice dated 27.06.2023 and
03.06.2024 issued by the respondents
be declared nonest as not issued to
the petitioner.
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to conduct a
fresh assessment, provide traffic and
cost data, consider alternatives to road
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
widening, and follow due process
under Section 210 of the BPMC Act.
d. Grant an interim stay on the
demolition of the Petitioner's shop
pending the disposal of this petition.
e. Direct the Respondents to treat the
Petitioner's shop equally with other
shops on the same road line in any
road-widening scheme.
f. Pass any such further or other
orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and just in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
2. The brief facts referred in the petition are as under: -
2.1. The petitioner herein is the widow of late Shri
Madhusudan Shankerlal Jain, who was occupant of shop
known as Adinath General Stores, Ambawadi Bazar,
Ambawadi, situated at TP Scheme No. 21, F.P. No. 431,
Ambawadi, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the shop in
question"). It is case of the petitioner that the shop in question
was demolished by respondent-Corporation without following
the provisions of Section 210 of the Gujarat Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, "the GPMC Act").
Earlier, Special Civil Application No. 5069 of 2008 was filed
challenging the notice dated 02.02.2009 issued by respondent-
Corporation. It was case of the petitioner in Special Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
Application No. 5069 of 2008, that the notice dated 02.02.2009
was issued without authority of law and the same is illegal.
The contention of opportunity of hearing not provided by the
Corporation to the petitioner as required under Section 210(2)
of the GPMC Act was raised. The said Special Civil
Application No. 5069 of 2008 was heard along with other
petitions involving identical issue and decided vide order dated
14.11.2008. By order dated 14.11.2008 in Special Civil
Application No. 7207 of 2008 and other allied petitions, the
respondent-Corporation was directed to adhere to the
procedure contemplated under Section 210 of the GPMC Act. A
personal hearing was also directed despite that an action of
demolition has been taken without providing opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. S. H. Bhatt for the petitioner
and Mr. S.H. Virk for the respondent - Corporation.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
notice dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure-B, Page 52) is bad in law.
The said notice was served upon the petitioner, who is
occupier of the shop in question. Under the said notice, 15
days' time was granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
handing over the possession, despite that, the Corporation
proceeded to take action under the provisions of the GPMC
Act. The notice also referred to compensation payable under
Section 216 of the GPMC Act. Accordingly, in response to
the notice, the petitioner filed a reply dated Nil (Annexure-D,
Page 55), wherein reference is made to Special Civil
Application No. 7207 of 2008. A response was also made that
the grounds stated in the notice dated 02.02.2009 of traffic
congestion is without any inspection or report in its support.
The status of the petitioner as occupant of the subject shop
was also made clear in the reply filed. Learned advocate
submitted that despite that one more notice dated 04.03.2009
(Annexure-C, Page 54) was served upon the petitioner. Under
this notice, the petitioner being occupant was given
opportunity to give his/her response within seven days.
4.1. Learned advocate submitted that since reply was
submitted to the earlier notice and the notice dated 04.03.2009
was only a reminder, fresh reply as not necessitated was not
filed. Learned advocate thus submitted that though petitioner
sought a personal hearing and also requested that her case be
duly considered, the demolition was undertaken. The
demolition was done without following the due procedure
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
prescribed under the GPMC Act. Therefore, either earlier
position of shop in question be restored or the petitioner may
be awarded adequate compensation.
4.2. Reliance is placed on various tax receipts and electricity
bills to justify the occupancy of the petitioner on a subject
shop since many years. Reliance is also placed on Civil Suit
No. 969 of 2000, wherein an interim injunction vide Order
dated 04.8.2000 was granted in favor of the petitioner. Learned
advocate therefore submitted that the action taken by the
respondent-Corporation is illegal, and the prayer for quashing
the notice dated 02.02.2009 may be considered at this stage.
By making reference to the subsequent notices dated
27.06.2023 and 03.06.2024, learned advocate submitted that
the same are not served upon the petitioner and therefore,
such notices are not required to be taken into consideration.
4.3. Further, by placing reliance on the decision of Bombay
High Court in case of ATA Freight Line Pvt Ltd v. Union of
India and Ors. reported in MANU/MH/1022/2022, learned
advocate submitted that delay in challenging the notice dated
02.02.2009 in the year 2025 may be ignored. In paragraph
Nos. 24, 25 and 26 it is held as under: -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
"24. This Court in case of Parle
International Ltd. (supra) after
considering the identical facts and after
adverting to the judgment in cases of
Bhagwandas S. Tolani (supra), Sanghvi
Reconditioners pvt. Ltd. (supra) and
Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) held
that that a show-cause notice issued a
decade back should not be allowed to
be adjudicated uponn by the revenue
merely because there is no period of
limitation prescribed in the statute to
complete such proceedings. Larger
public interest requires that revenue
should adjudicate the show-cause notice
expeditiously and within a reasonable
period. It is held that keeping the
show-cause notice in the dormant llist
or the call book, such a plea cannot be
allowed or condoned by the writ court
to justify inordinate delay at the hands
of the revenue. This Court was
accordingly pleased to quash and set
aside the show cause notices which
were pending quite some time.
25. In case of Sushitex Exports India
Ltd. (supra), Division Bench of this
Court was pleased to quash and set
aside the show cause notices which
remained pending for adjudication from
1997. This Court considered the fact
that though the petitioner therein was
called for hearing in the year 2006, no
final order was passed immediately
after hearing was granted to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
petitioner. It is held that the
respondents seem to have slipped into
deep slumber thereafter. This Court
while quashing and setting aside the
show cause notices which were not
decided after long delay was pleased to
grant consequential relief to the
petitioner therein by directing the
respondents to return the amounts paid
by the petitioner under protest during
the course of investigation with interest
@ 12% p.a.
26. This Court in case of The Bombay
Dyeing and Manufacturing Company
Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
CGST & CX (supra) after adverting to
the judgment in cases of
ParleInternational Ltd. Vs. Union of
India (supra) and Reliance Industries
Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) has held
that when a show-cause notice is issued
to a party, it is expected that the same
would be taken to its logical conclusion
within a reasonable period so that a
finality is reached. If the respondent
would have informed the petitioner
about the said Show-Cause Notice
having been kept in call book in the
year 2005 itself, the Petitioner would
have immediately applied for
appropriate reliefs by filing the
appropriate proceedings. It is held that
it is not expected from the assessee to
preserve the evidence/record intact for
such a long period to be produced at
the time of hearing of the Show-Cause
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
Notice.
5. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr. Virk invited
the attention of this Court to the notice dated 02.02.2009 and
submitted that the occupant of the shop was served with the
notice dated 02.02.2009. It is true that the said notice was
subject matter of challenge before this Court and this Court
directed the Corporation to provide opportunity of hearing to
the owner/occupant of the shop vide order 14.11.2008.
Accordingly, the petitioner was served with a notice dated
04.03.2009. Pursuant to the notice dated 04.03.2009 the
petitioner filed reply which is at page No. 51. From the notice
dated 04.03.2009 it is evident that, time sought by the
petitioner was referred in the said notice, and reply filed was
considered which is evident from the respondent Corporation's
communication. The said communication is annexed at page
100. Referring to the said communication, learned advocate
Mr. Virk submitted that, every grievance raised by the
petitioner was responded. Even the submission of the petitioner
with regard to providing of alternative location was considered.
The communication also refers to the earlier opportunity of
hearing granted to the petitioner.
5.1. Further, by placing reliance on 7/12 extract, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
advocate Mr. Virk submitted that the shop in question is in
ownership of some other person and not with the petitioner.
This aspect is evident from the proceedings initiated in the suit
where respondent-Corporation was not party. As required
under the provisions of the Act the owner of the property was
served with the notice as also provided with the opportunity of
hearing and it may be considered that the owner of the
property is not before this Court challenging the demolition.
Therefore, for the internal dispute between the owner of the
property and the petitioner, this petition may not be
entertained.
5.2. Learned advocate, in support has relied upon decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Rajendra Kumar
Barjatiya v.s. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 to submit that the
construction was done unauthorizedly and the same is required
to be removed as expeditiously as possible. In this case, the
same was done after following the due process by serving
notice to the petitioner and providing sufficient time to vacate.
Moreover, from the photographs it is amply clear that this is
an area with the heavy traffic congestion and for the
development of road this building is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
demolished. Therefore, as the petitioner has no right over the
subject property this petition may be dismissed accordingly.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Virk submitted that as provided
under Section 210 of the GPMC Act, the petitioners were given
opportunity of hearing and for deciding the compensation as
provided under Section 216 of the GPMC Act, the parties are
not required to be heard. Therefore, the contention being
misconceived deserves to be ignored.
6. Considering the submission and documents on the record,
at the outset, it is noticed that this petition is filed challenging
the notice dated 02.02.2009 issued by respondent No. 2. The
notice dated 02.02.2009 was subject matter of challenge in
Special Civil Application No. 7207 of 2007 and other allied
petitions, wherein this Court vide order dated 14.11.2008
directed the Commissioner to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law in exercise of powers under Clause (a) of
Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of GPMC Act after granting
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that
pursuant thereto a notice dated 04.03.2009 was served to the
petitioner being occupant of the shop in question. In the notice
dated 04.03.229, reference of notice dated 02.02.2009 issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
under Section 210(1)(a) of the GPMC Act was made. The said
notice also refers to the petitioner's response wherein time was
sought by the petitioner to file reply. Therefore, a seven days'
time was granted. From the record it is noticed that
accordingly the petitioner filed his response which is dated nil
at Annexure-D, Page 55. After response of the petitioner, a
notice dated 04.01.2008 (page 93) was issued to the petitioner
under Section 212(1) of the GPMC Act. From the tenure of
notice dated 04.01.2008, it is evident that it refers to the shop
in occupancy of the petitioner, having 27.82 square meters of
area. The notice dated 04.01.2008 issued under Section 212(1)
also refers to the earlier notice under Section 212(1) of GPMC
Act. The notice dated 04.01.2008 states that the property in
question is in the road line and therefore the same is required
to be demolished under the provisions of the GPMC Act.
Further, show cause notice dated 04.01.2008 under Section 212
(1) of the GPMC act was served upon the petitioner calling for
her/ his reply. The said notice refers to acquiring of the land
for the purpose of road. This was followed by one another
notice dated 21.02.2005 under Section 212(2) of the GPMC act.
The notice dated 21.02.2005 refers to the property in question
coming in the road line and earlier notice issued in the month
of January. The notice also refers to the earlier objections
received and found not satisfactory by the Corporation. From
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
the endorsement on the said notice, it is evident that the
notice dated 21.02.2005 was served by affixture on 28.02.2008.
From the record, it is noticed that a reply was filed by
petitioner to the notice dated 04.01.2008, wherein several
objections were raised including the non-congestion of traffic
and the alternative location to be provided to the petitioner
being the occupant. The reply of the petitioner to the notice
dated 04.01.2008 was considered by communication which is
at page 100 wherein every objection was considered in detail
with the explanation. A response was given that under the
provisions of the GPMC Act, there is no provision to provide
alternative accommodation. A reference of earlier opportunity
provided was also made with the intent to act under Section
212 of the GPMC Act. Most importantly, the petitioner is
occupant of the shop in question is not in dispute and which
is evident from the suit proceedings. Even the 7/12 extract
refers to the ownership of shop with some other person.
Moreover, there is nothing on record which the petitioner has
placed to justify that the construction was done by the original
owner after having development permission. Therefore, there is
nothing to justify that the construction done was not
unauthorized. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Kumar
Barjatiya (Supra) wherein it is held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
" In the ultimate analysis, we are of the
opinion that construction(s) put up in
violation of or deviation from the building
plan approved by the local authority and
constructions which are audaciously put up
without any building planning approval,
cannot be encouraged. Each and every
construction must be made scrupulously
following and strictly adhering to the Rules.
In the event of any violation being brought
to the notice of the Courts, it has to be
curtailed with iron hands and any lenience
afforded to them would amount to showing
misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing
rectification of illegalities, administrative
failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of
construction and investment, negligence and
laxity on the part of the authorities
concerned in performing their obligation(s)
under the Act, cannot be used as a shield
to defend action taken against the
illegal/unauthorized constructions. That
apart, the State Governments often to
enrich themselves through the process of
regularisation by condoning/ratifying the
violations and illegalities. The State is
unmindful that this gain is insignificant
compared to the long-term damage it
caused to the orderly urban development
and irreversible adverse impact on the
environment. Hence, regularization schemes
must be brought out only in the exceptional
circumstances and as onetime measure for
residential houses after a detailed survey
and considering the nature of land, fertility,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
usage, impact on the environment,
availability and distribution of resources,
proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger
public interest. Unauthorized constructions,
apart from posing a threat to the life of the
occupants and the citizens living nearby,
also have an effect on resources like
electricity, ground water and access to
roads, which are primarily designed to be
made available in orderly development and
authorized activities. Master plan or the
zonal development cannot be just individual
centric but also must be devised keeping in
mind the larger interest of the public and
the environment. Unless the administration
is streamlined and the persons entrusted
with the implementation of the act are held
accountable for their failure in performing
statutory obligations, violations of this
nature would go unchecked and become
more rampant. If the officials are let scot-
free, they will be emboldened and would
continue to turn a nelson's eye to all the
illegalities resulting in derailment of all
planned projects and pollution, disorderly
traffic, security risks, etc."
7. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the action of
demolition was done after providing opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and after following due process as provided
under Sections 210 to 212 of the GPMC Act. Even the
objections raised by the petitioner have been considered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
Moreover, prayer made that the petitioner may be provided
with compensation, is also not found logical since under
section 216 of the GPMC Act, compensation shall have to be
provided to the owner of any building or land required for
public street under Sections 211, 212, 213 and 214 of the Act.
It is not the case here since admittedly, the petitioner is not
owner of the shop in question.
8. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the petition and
the same is rejected.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
SHIVANI SHUKLA
