Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J
RIYAZHUSSAIN SHABBIRALI MASANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Dave for learned Advocate Mr. Rohan Lavkumar for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent-State.
2. While the present petition had preferred challenging order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar and whereas vide an order dated 24.07.2019, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim relief in terms of staying the order in question, learned Advocate Mr. Dave, under instructions, would request the the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present petition, more particularly with liberty to challenge the order passed by the Collector before the revisional authority and in the interregnum for a brief period, the interim relief be extended. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would further request that the time consumed by approaching this Court and during pendency of the present petition, may be directed to be appropriately considered by the revisional authority while deciding an application which would be preferred by the petitioners for condoning the delay.
4. The request made by the learned Advocate being reasonable is accepted, more particularly having regard to the fact that the int
The court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their petition, reserving the right to challenge the Collector's order while extending interim relief until 28.02.2025.
The court emphasized the necessity of granting interim relief to prevent irreversible prejudice during ongoing proceedings.
Point of law: Protection of possession - specific instances given in writing in the memo of appeal to point out that in few cases, enormous delay is condoned by the very authority, but the same has n....
The absence of a prescribed time limit for filing revision applications under the Mamlatdar Courts Act necessitates judicial intervention when a party has a reasonable cause for delay.
The court established that revisional authority cannot interfere with interlocutory orders lacking sufficient reasoning, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision.
The necessity of providing reasons in administrative decisions, particularly when vacating interim orders, is essential to uphold principles of natural justice.
Discretionary orders regarding interim relief should not be interfered with unless they are patently illegal, particularly when no merits are decided.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
