Point of Law: The law will apply equally to one and all. If there are other bungalows unauthorized constructed, then such bungalows also should be demolished. Counsel, has assured this Court that this aspect of the matter will be looked into and the needful shall be done at the earliest in accordance with law.

ORDER :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. On 8th October, 2021, this Court passed the following order;

“1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original respondent no.3 of a writ application and is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.02.2017 in the Special Civil Application No.2890 of 2017 by which the writ application filed by the original writ applicant came to be disposed of with appropriate directions.

2. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus :-

“1. Heard Mr. Chirag Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent–Municipal Corporation to implement and execute the order passed under Section 260(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 in its true and correct spirit in the interest of justice.

3. It appears that the petitioner had approached the Corporation because of which the proceedings for unauthorized construction made by the private respondents were undertaken under Section 260(1) of the Act by notice dated 3.10.2016. Thereafter, the final order as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 260 of the Act was also passed on 15.10.2016. As no actions were taken, the petitioner approached the Corporation by a legal notice dated 24.1.2017. As nothing was done, the present petition is filed.

4. Without expressing any opinion on merits, respondent no.1 Corporation is hereby directed to look into the notice dated 24.1.2017 issued by the petitioner and take appropriate steps as per the order dated 15.10.2016 passed under Section 260(2) of the Act.

5. The petition is disposed of accordingly at this stage. Direct service is permitted.”

3. Here is a litigation in which the appellant could be said to be prima facie in contempt of this Court for disobeying the order passed by this Court dated 21.08.2017 in the Special Civil Application No.6475 of 2017. The order reads thus:-

“Learned advocate Shri Karan Sanghani places on record a communication dated 19.08.2017 from the petitioner and states that in view of this communication, the petition may be dismissed.

Learned advocate Shri Deep Vyas has also no objection.

Therefore, as stated in this affidavit-cum-undertaking, the petitioner shall remove the unauthorized construction within three months, which is not fit for approval as per G.D.C.R. Thereafter, the fresh application will be made which may be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.”

4. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein is one of the residents of Shri Bhavanichaya Soceity situated near Suryanagar Pumping Station, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. The original writ applicant residing adjacent to the society referred to above brought to the notice of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation that the appellant has put up unauthorized construction as a result of which, some part of the road has been blocked. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation took cognizance of this complaint of the original writ applicant and proceeded further to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. An order came to be passed dated 15.08.2016 which is at page no.34 of the original paper book asking the Chairman and the Secretary of the said society to ensure that the offending construction put up by the appellant herein is removed at the earliest. It appears that nothing was done thereafter.

5. In such circumstances, the Special Civil Application No.2890 of 2017 came to be filed seeking appropriate directions. The learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the respondents, disposed of the same directing the Corporation to look into the notice dated 24.01.2017 issued by the writ applicant and to take appropriate steps for the implementation of its order