IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
DALPATSINGH HANSRAJ RAJPUROHIT - Appellant
Versus
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6499 of 2020
Decided On : 07-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 14 - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Section 260, (1), (2) , 268(5) and 254 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Town Planning Act - Non-Residential Premises - Construction - Petitioners are holding thereafter premises as owners and was being used for non-residential purpose – Commercial purpose and respondent Corporation used to assess and have levy of commercial tax from petitioners - Whether it falls within purview of permissible construction or not - Whether renovation has fallen within exception purview or not are question to be determined and examined.
Finding of the Court:
No such facts are visible, on contrary, stand is taken that since large number of persons are carrying out such kind of activity, same be allowed to petitioners as well, and further photographs which are indicating alteration or renovation work, whether it falls within purview of permissible construction or not, are seriously disputed question of fact which this Court is not inclined to examine - It is for respondent Corporation to examine this seriously disputed version about nature of construction, about permissible limits of a construction, whether renovation has fallen within exception purview or not are question to be determined and examined by competent authority and for that purpose, this Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary equitable jurisdiction, however, it would be open for petitioners to make request to Corporation to get it examined and then request for permission, if so require - From peculiar background of facts and projected before this Court, there appears to be substantial compliance of relevant provisions of Act by Corporation and it also appears that reasonable opportunity has been given and as such strictly speaking, no case is made out to call for any interference - Petition is found to be meritless - It is also provided that if petitioners approaches authority within a period of two weeks from today, authority shall consider same in accordance with law by taking a decision upon compliance of principles of natural justice preferably within a period of four weeks upon such receipt of request of petitioners.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs : -
(b) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass an appropriate order or a direction, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 29.01.2020 (Annexure V) issued by the respondent No. 4 Dy. Town Development Officer.
(c) Pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the further operation of impugned order/notice dated 07.02.2020 of Respondent Town Development Officer (Annexure A) and be pleased to restrain the respondents from causing any hurdle from entering into the premises in question and from doing the restaurant business in the said premises.
(d) Cost of this petition be awarded.
(e) Any other just and proper relief be granted in favour of the petitioners, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as your Lordship may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity and conscience.”
2. The background of the facts which has given rise to the present proceedings is that the petitioners are the occupiers of building / premises situated in Vadodara in Raopura area of city precisely in Mama’s Pole bearing Tika No. 21/1, City Survey No. 74 having area admeasuring 170.57 sq. mtrs. (plot area 1827 sq. fts.). The said property is a three storied building comprising of ground, first and second floor, and the petitioners are holding possession thereof since 2009 initially as a permissive user, and thereafter have purchased the property in question by registered sale document dated 23.02.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are holding thereafter the premises as the owners and was being used for non-residential purpose – commercial purpose and the respondent Corporation used to assess and have levy of commercial tax from the petitioners.
3. The petitioners are since in catering business, the ground floor of the premises was used for office work, whereas first and second floor were being used for ancillary purpose of catering business. After purchase of the said premises in February, 2017, the petitioners have chosen to renovate the building by executing colouring work, gate work, repairing of flooring etc. and while doing so, the original old structure of the premises is kept intact. According to the petitioners, there is no alteration either in the basic structure or in the shape of the premises by carrying out such work. At the first floor, the petitioners have undertaken renovation of running a restaurant in the name of “Desi Rotlo (Kathiyawadi Restaurant)”. According to the petitioners, the legal requirements related to run a restaurant are being complied with. The petitioners have applied before the respondent Corporation for license under Gumasta Dhara. The Corporation after physical inspection of the premises, issued the said license on 02.01.2020 for a period of three years renewable on 1st January on expiration of the said period of three years. An application was also submitted for license from Food and Drugs Control Administration Department of the State of Gujarat as required under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The competent authority, upon such scrutiny, was also pleased to grant such license on 15.02.2020 for a initial period of five years. The related license fee charged by Vadodara Municipal Corporation has also been paid which fact is not in
State of Odisha and Another versus Anup Kumar Senapati and Another reported in (2019) 19 SCC 626
Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh
Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab
Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab and others
Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer
Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and others
Bondu Ramaswamy and others v. Bangalore Development Authority and others
State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.