COMMISSIONER, BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT LTD
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Sep 2000
- Bench
- M R CALLA, R R TRIPATHI
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER, BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT LTD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr.J.R.Nanavati with MR AR THACKER for Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1767/99. Mr.N.K.Pahwa for the appellant in Letters Patent…
Judgment
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.R.TRIPATHI ============================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?
To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?
Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER, BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT LTD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr.J.R.Nanavati with MR AR THACKER for Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1767/99. Mr.N.K.Pahwa for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1850/99. Mr.S.N.Shelat, learned Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Harsha Devani, learned A.G.P. for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.144/2000. Mr.D.R.Dhanuka, senior counsel, with Mr.B.H.Antia, Solicitor, Mr.S.U.Kamdar and Mr.N.A.Pandya for contesting respondents in all the Appeals. -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA MR.JUSTICE R.R.TRIPATHI Date of decision: 07/09/2000 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT(Per :M.R.Calla,J) (cid:9)Heard learned counsel.
(cid:9)Learned Addl. Advocate General Mr.Suresh N.Shelat appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat states that the State Government shall consider the objections and suggestions of the original petitioners i.e. respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein i.e. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Savjibhai Haribhai Patel and others, if any, received so far, in respect of proposal designating the use of the land in question admeasuring 80 Acres out of Survey No.471/2 situated at village Vadva, Bhavnagar for water body (Gauri Talao) before finalising the revised development plan and record its reasons for its decision on such objections and suggestions in the file. The original petitioners i.e. respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein shall file their objections and suggestions within a period of 8 weeks from today and the State Government shall thereupon decide such objections and suggestions and the Notification of the final sanction shall be issued as early as possible, preferably within a period of nine months from today.
The respondents Nos.1 and 2 as well as Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Bhavnagar Area Development Authority have no objection to this course of action being followed. We order accordingly. (cid:9)In this view of the matter, respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein i.e. original petitioners in Special Civil Application 6557/99 decided on 17.12.99 seek to withdraw the aforesaid Special Civil Application with liberty to file fresh writ petition against the final notification as may be issued by the State of Gujarat, if at all it becomes necessary for them to do so. The aforesaid Special Civil Application No.6557/99 is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid. It is made clear with the consent of both the sides that nothing said, observed or ordered in the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.99 in Special Civil Application No.6557/99 shall bind any of the parties for any purpose in any pending or future proceedings, including the consideration of objections and suggestions by the State Government as above.
All contentions of all the parties are kept open. (cid:9)All these three Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of in the terms as aforesaid. No order as to costs. Interim order passed in any Civil Application in any of these Appeals automatically comes to an end and ceases to be operative. (cid:9) (cid:9)(M.R.Calla,J) (cid:9) (cid:9)(R.R.Tripathi,J) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 07 Sep 2000. The bench was M R CALLA, R R TRIPATHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.