JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah learned advocate for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.8864 of 2016, Mr.Dev D. Patel learned advocate for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.9356 of 2016.

2. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers of the petitioners are similar/identical in nature. For the purposes of brevity, prayers as well as facts of Special Civil Application No.8864 of 2016 are discussed.

3. The prayers read as under:

“(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 27.05.2016 (served on 30.05.2016) issued by respondent No.2 herein (Annexure-A) and thereby restrain the Nagarpalika from terminating the tenancy rights of the petitioners and from removing the petitioners from their lawful possession of the shops in question.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the notices dated 27.05.2016 (served on 30.05.2016) issued by the Nagarpalika – respondent No.2 and thereby restrain the Nagarpalika from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners with respect to the occupation of shops.”

4. Facts in nutshell are that it is the case of the petitioners that they are permanent residents of Kalol Town and occupants of shops since more than 40 years on Station Road, Kalol. That they have been paying rent to the Kalol Nagarpalika from 1975 and rent receipts in proof thereof are annexed to this petition. It is a statement made in the petition that with an ulterior motive, the Nagarpalika has stopped taking rent from 01.04.2008 though the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the amount. Further it is the case of the petitioners that they have paid municipal tax to the Nagarpalika upto the year 2015- 16 as demanded by the Nagarpalika. That they are paying electricity connection charges which is justified by producing bills annexed to the petition. The case of the petitioners is that there are in all 82 shops situated on the main road known as station road, Kalol. Of these 82 shops, 61 shop owners have been issued notices, which are under challenge, whereby, the petitioners have been asked to vacate the land on which such structures/shops are existing.

5. Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah learned counsel for the petitioners would invite the attention of this Court to the notice dated 27.05.2016. Reading the notice, it is the endeavor of Mr.Shah to submit that the notice indicates that action is being undertaken pursuant to an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.603 of 2005 dated 25.03.2005 which according to the Nagarpalika’s perception was a mandate to the Nagarpalika to take over possession of lands which were occupied by encroachers and not to renew the lease agreements of such occupants. The notice also refers to a resolution of 01.04.2008, by which, the Nagarpalika stopped accepting rent unilaterally. Reliance is also placed on the resolution of 31.07.2015. Mr.Shah learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order passed on which the notice impugned herein is based. It is his submission that the Special Civil Application No.603 of 2005 was a petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order of removal as the President of the Municipality under Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. The contention of the petitioners there was that the President had acted only by agreeing to the decision of the administrator in his capacity as a President which was a subject matter of removal. Inviting the Court’s attention to the operative portion of the order, Mr.Shah would submit that therefore what was under the scrutiny of the Court was the aspect of the removal of the President which was completely unconnected with the issue of encroachment and/or non-renewal of lease of the tenancy rights of the petitioners.

6. Inviting at