Point of Law: Accommodation as per scheme - Since documents produced by petitioner by way of this petition even after number of years after rehabilitation process is over - Those documents are insufficient and would not confer any right upon petitioner to seek any alternative accommodation as per rehabilitation scheme of Respondent Corporation.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

“8(A) YOUR LORDSHPS may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order (Annexure-A) dated 25/02/2015 of the Respondent no.3 in the interest of justice;

8(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to pending admission and final hearing and disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of order passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 25/02/2015 and further development of flat on the plot of Lakhudi Talavadi Area and also stay the further payment to other resident in manner of cash or cheque as payment of rent or as any other relief/s by Respondents in the interest of Rule of Equality and justice;

8(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to pass an order to pay a rent of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of first demolish or notice to remove the resident of petitioner and also give facility of rehabilitation and optional resident instead of present resident for temporary purpose till providing the flat as resident at Lakhudi Talavadi area in the interest of Justice;

8(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to pass the direction on the present Respondents and specifically direct to the Respondent No.3 to 6 to decide the pending representation dated 25/02/2015 of the petitioner within a period of one month in the interest of Justice;

8(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Mr. D. V. Bhavsar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for respondents nos.1 and 2 State Authorities and Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate for respondents nos.3 to 6.

3. Brief facts of the present case are stated as under:

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that since, 1980, the petitioner was residing at 109, Lakhudi Talavadina Chapra, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad and was doing tailoring work since 1980. In the year 2003, respondent no.6 started demolition drive to widen the road. At the relevant point of time, as per the case of the petitioner, respondents nos.3 to 6 assured the petitioner that the petitioner will be given an alternative accommodation as per the rehabilitation scheme at the same place. Accordingly, the petitioner also filed an application dated 03/12/2003 seeking an alternative accommodation. The respondents also, vide communication dated 19/12/2003, asked the petitioner to produce Yellow Card which was given to the residents of slums who were residing prior to year 1976 and intimated the petitioner that after the scrutiny if the petitioner is found using the same premises for residential purpose, in that case, the petitioner's case will be considered for an alternative accommodation in accordance with the scheme of the corporation.

3.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the year 2004, some of the residents of Lakhudi Talavadi area preferred Special Civil Application No.16819 of 2003 and there the Division Bench of this Court issued certain directions by granting some time to the petitioners of the said petition for making an alternative arrangement and time to vacate the premises was granted up to 12/04/2004.

3.3. In view of the fact that no relief was granted in the aforesaid petition, the concerned respondent issued notice to the petitioner and others for vacating the premises so that encroachment can be removed for the purpose of widening the road. Thereafter, as per the scheme of respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, alternative accommodation was given to other families. However, the petitioner was not given an alternative accommodation though the petitioner's residence was demolished by the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the prayers whi