Gujarat High Court
Parshottambhai Nagjibhai Prajapati vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 7 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 8 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 9 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5818 of 2019
==========================================================
PARSHOTTAMBHAI NAGJIBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 7
MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,8,9
MR MR RAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR GA VAGHELA FOR M/S
RJ RAWAL ASSOC.(1987) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHIVYA A DESAI(5478) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the
petitioners, learned senior advocate Mr.Maulin Rawal with
Mr.Vaghela for Rawal Associates for the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
2. After arguing for some time, learned advocate
Mr.Acharya for the petitioners, upon instructions, seeks
permission to withdraw the petition being Special Civil
Application No.319 of 2015 qua respondent nos.7 and 10.
Permission is granted. This petition is withdrawn qua
respondent nos.7 and 10.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya further submitted
that for rest of the petitioners, he has tendered copy of the
note in the Registry in the year 2020 for withdrawal of his
appearance. However, from the perusal of the record, no such
note is found.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Rawal has pointed out
that the decision which is taken earlier is pursuant to old
policy and thereafter there is change in policy which is
challenged by proceedings which are decided by the
coordinate Bench, thereafter by Letters Patent Appeal and
thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Rawal has also relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave
to Appeal No.10145 of 2023 dated 12.5.2023, which reads as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
"We have heard Ms.Tanya Aggarwal, the learned counsel for
the petitioners are length.
However, considering the implication for public interest in
granting the prayer for the petitioners, we see no reason to
disturb the decision of the High Court. The Special Leave
Petition accordingly stand dismissed.
However, on the prayer of the petitioners' counsel, four
weeks time is granted to vacate the quarters in possession
of the petitioners subject to filing the usual undertaking
before this Court within one week from today, stating that
the petitioners shall not create any third party rights, will
clear all rent/dues, if any, in the meanwhile and will
voluntarily vacate the premises within stipulated time. On
expiry of four weeks, the petitioners are expected to
handover peaceful vacant possession of the quarters.
Otherwise, the Police help may be taken for clearing the
quarters.
With the above order, the Special Leave Petition stands
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed."
6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, whereby the petitioners who were employees
of the Corporation have retired and are still occupying the
quarters, now, in view of the settled position of law that
after retirement, quarters are not required to be occupied by
the retired employee after a permissible period, the prayers
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/319/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
in the petition which are specifically for the reduction of sale
consideration are not required to be considered any further.
However, it is open for the petitioners to make necessary
representation if they want to make, before the authority in
accordance with law, which may be considered appropriately
by the authority if it is permissible under the law.
7. In view of this, these petitions are disposed of
without discussing anything on merits. It is expected that the
principle laid down in the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as mentioned hereinabove, though passed in another
set of petitions, shall be complied with in its true letters and
spirit. Civil Applications also stand disposed of.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the petitioners
has submitted that in view of the earlier decision of the
Corporation, the petitioners nos.7 and 10 have already
deposited the amount. It is open for the petitioner nos.7 and
10 to claim refund of the said amount since the prayers
prayed for in this petition are not granted by this Court.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
