ORDER :

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.)

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the oral order dated 6.6.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3177 of 2016.

2. The case of the appellants- original petitioners is that for the benefit and welfare of animals, a shelter house came to be constructed after following proper procedure and in accordance with law and after obtaining necessary permissions. On account of financial crunch observed by Panjra Pole Trust, commercial shops were constructed on one part of the building facing subject road, which is proposed to be 24 meters vide, and on the other side of the building, residential quarters are constructed. These commercial shops and construction put up were with a sole idea to generate income since appellants being occupiers and tenants of these shops they are regularly paying rent to Goushala which proceeds are being utilized for welfare of the animals and utilized for their shelter and nourishment.

3. It is the case of the appellants that in the year 1996, work of Town Planning Scheme Nos.7 and 8 for city of Rajkot came to be drafted, which got finalized and according to the appellants-petitioner, said Town Planning Scheme Nos.7 and 8, road and public streets with their width were prescribed and for present, Bhavnagar road as per Town Planning Scheme was proposed to be 24 meters wide. According to appellants, under the guise of widening of road, deviation in road line of public street prescribed in final Town Planning Scheme Nos.7 and 8 has been commenced. Resultantly, commercial shops which are in occupation of the present appellants will be adversely affected and surprisingly, the then Trustees of Rajkot Mahajan Panjara Pole Trust submitted an affidavit to the Corporation giving consent for demolition and on account of such road widening, according to appellants, there was no authority to submit such affidavit dated 17.11.2009, resolutions came to be passed and as a result of it, respondent Corporation served a notice under Section 210 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (‘GPMC Act’) to the appellants and as such, left with no alternate, appellants were constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.3177 of 2016 for assailing the action of the respondent authority.

4. Said Special Civil Application challenging action of respondent authority in issuing consequential order dated 22.2.2016 came to be preferred, which had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge who by oral order dated 6.6.2022, dismissed the petition and interim relief which came to be granted earlier was vacated. However, upon request of appellants, said interim relief which was in operation was ordered to be extended till 6.7.2022. Hence, with this background, present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. Learned senior Advocate Shri Yatin Oza assisted by learned advocate Mr. Jit Patel has represented the appellants. Whereas Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, has represented respondent No.1 authority whose action was basically under challenge.

5. Learned senior advocate Shri Yatin Oza appearing for the appellants has submitted that action on the part of respondent authority is not only unjust and arbitrary but without an authority of law and as such, contending all aspects urged not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge and order under challenge requires to be set aside by granting consequential reliefs as prayed for, has sought for allowing the appeal. It has been been contended that road in question, which is sought to be expanded, is actually the road prescribed under sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, which has now become part of the Act by virtue of its finalization and as such, if proposed action is implemented, same would tantamount to tinkering with the scheme which has attained finality. Shri Oza has submitted that there is a set procedure prescri