AHMEDABAD GALLA LARI UNION Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD
LAWS(GJH)-1988-12-19
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 27,1988

AHMEDABAD GALLA LARI UNION Appellant
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD Respondents




JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)This review application arises out of an order dated 29/04/1988 dismissing Appeal From Order No. 41 of 1988 and other allied matters. The applicants filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad challenging the legality and validity of the operation of the Scheme framed by the Commissioner Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and removing the applicants from their places where they are carrying on business on pavements foot-paths and other public places. The applicants-plaintiffs had taken out a notice of motion for interim relief praying that pending the hearing and final decision of the suit the respondents be restrained from removing the applicants from the places where they are carrying on their business on pavements foot-paths and other places. The notice of motion has been dismissed by trial Court. Appeal From Order against that order has also been dismissed by me as per order dated 29/04/1988 This application is for review of the order dismissing the aforesaid Appeal From Order and other allied matters.
(2.)The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that no reason whatsoever is assigned while dismissing the appeal from order and therefore it is difficult for the applicants to carry the matter further. My attention is drawn to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kamleshbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Ors v. Vijaykumar Parshottambhai Patel de Anr. Special Leave to Appeal No. 4418 of 1988 decided on 19/05/1988 wherein the order passed by this Court dismissing Appeal From Order No. 353 of 1987 on 27-12-1987 has been set aside on the ground that appeal has been decided by this Court without assigning any reason and the matter has been remanded for deciding the same on merits. The learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that the respondent-authorities are publicly announcing that there is direction of this High Court and that of the Supreme Court to the effect that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons be removed from the places occupied by them. It is contended that though there is no such direction or observation by this High Court or the Supreme Court the action is sought to he justified as if it is pursuant to judicial command. Therefore this position is also required to be clarified.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that against the order under review Special Leave Petition is filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court and therefore review is not maintainable and this Court has no jurisdiction to contain the review application so long as the Special Leave Petition is pending. He has further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition referred to herein above is confined to the facts of that particular case and the decision does not lay down any principle of universal applicability. therefore he submitted that the review application should be rejected.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.