The court addressed the issue of unauthorized construction and the refusal of development permission, allowing the submission of a revised plan and directing the authorities to take appropriate action within a specified period.

V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner espousing the public cause in which it has been prayed that the respondents authorities be directed to take stringent action against the respondent No. 8 and 9 for carrying out unauthorized construction and the respondent authorities be directed to demolish the construction already made and further prayed that the respondents be directed not to grant any B.U. permission without complete compliance of the requisite rules by the respondent No. 8.

2. The petitioner who is a public spirited citizen has preferred this public interest litigation wherein he has stated that he is a social worker and ex-municipal councilor in Dhoraji Nagarpalika. He has preferred various public interest litigations before this Court for various purposes. It is the case of the petitioner that one Shri Teli Zubedabai Haji Habibhai sought permission to demolish old construction on the land of city survey No. 711 paiki on 9.7.2013. The respondent No. 8 thereafter purchased the land of city survey No. 711 paiki admeasuring 926 sq.mtrs. by registered sale deed from one Aabid Umar Kunda on 12.8.2013. Thereafter, the present respondent No. 8 applied for development permission vide application dated 11.12.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that the meeting of the Town Planning Committee of respondent Nagar Palika was held on 11.11.2014 and in the said meeting, resolution was passed with regard to the application of respondent No. 8 that as the open area of ground floor was to be kept 50% open and as the margin of 6.00 on all sides was to be kept and the parking was to be kept as per the rules and as details of fire safety in the said section is not shown, the development permission sought by respondent No. 8 is rejected and the same is filed. Respondent No. 8 was also informed about the said decision vide communication dated 10.3.2015 and by the said communication, it was also conveyed to respondent No. 8 not to put any further construction. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of refusal of the permission by the respondent Nagar Palika, respondent No. 8 has started construction and practically completed the same. In spite of that, no action is taken by the officers of the respondent-Nagar Palika. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present petition. By way of an amendment, the petitioner has impleaded respondent No. 9 as party respondent in the present proceedings which has carried out the construction in the land in question.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Brijesh Trivedi for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Devnani for respondent No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for respondent No. 6, Mr. D.A. Sankhesara for respondent No. 8 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar for respondent No. 9.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the petitioner referred to the various documents annexed with the petition and submitted that after the permission was sought by Shri Teli Zebedabibi Haji Habibbhai for demolition of old construction on the land bearing city survey No. 711 paiki, respondent No. 8 purchased the said land admeasuring 926 sq.mtrs. by registered sale deed and respondent No. 8 applied for the development permission on 11.12.2013. Learned advocate thereafter referred to the resolution passed by the respondent Nagar Palika in the meeting held on 11.11.2014 and submitted that the respondent Nagar Palika rejected the permission sought by respondent No. 8 on the grounds stated in the said resolution. The said resolution is produced at page number 81 of the compilation. He thereafter referred to the document produced at page 82 i.e. communication dated 10.3.2015 whereby respondent Nagar Palika informed the respondent No. 8 that the development permission asked for by the respondent No. 8 has been rejected and thereafter was instructed not to carry out any further construction. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi thereafter referred to