The court affirmed that grievances regarding unauthorised constructions should be addressed under the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2022, ensuring compliance with legal provisions.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Tanna, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, we may note that Mr. Tanna, learned senior counsel has made certain submissions on the observations made in the order dated 17.1.2025 with respect to the manner in which the matter was proceeded with by Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Tanna, learned senior counsel representing the views of the Bar being the senior member of the Bar would also submit that lawyer cannot ask the Court for recusal from the case just because the Court is not accepting the views of the lawyer. Having heard that, noticing that Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner expressed his regret over the incident, as to whatever happened in the Court on 17.1.2025, and gave assurance that such occurrence will not be repeated in future, we deem it fit and proper to expunge the remarks made against the conduct of Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi on 17.1.2025 in our oral order dated 17.1.2025.

2. Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioner seeks withdrawal of both the applications namely Civil Application No.2 of 2025 and Civil Application No.3 of 2025 filed on 29.1.2025. Both the applications are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Coming on the merits of the case, having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note that the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the year 2011 by the petitioner who was a Municipal Councillor in Dhoraji Nagarpalika, making a grievance with respect to certain constructions raised by the private respondent Nos. 8 to 20, with the contention that the constructions in question are all illegal and unauthorised. Prayer has been made in the writ petition to issue a writ of direction commanding the respondent-authorities to take action against the persons who had raised illegal constructions, impleaded as respondent Nos. 8 to 20.

4. We may record that on the presentation of the writ petition, notice was issued on 21.10.2011 making it returnable on 7.12.2011. Certain information was called for from the municipal authority vide order dated 29.12.2011 and it was directed that in the meantime, the municipal authority shall see that no further constructions take place. On 29.3.2012, on a supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent disclosing the date of filing of the application for grant of sanctioned plan before the municipal authority, direction was issued to the municipal authority to file response disclosing the date of filing of such application for sanction by all private respondents and indicating as to whether such applications have been disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing thereof. While issuing such a direction, the Court had passed an order to the effect that no construction shall be made unless construction is strictly in accordance with the rule, regulation and bye-laws of the concerned municipality, until further orders of this Court. It seems that a contempt application has arisen out of the order dated 29.3.2012, wherein allegations were made of non-compliance of the directions made in the said order which has led to the proceedings pending before the Apex Court.

5. Be that as it may, having gone through the merits of the present petition, filed in the nature of PIL, we may simply record that the proceedings arising out of the contempt application filed by the petitioner, pleading for non-compliance of the interim order dated 29.3.2012 has no bearing on the final disposal of the present petition which is pending for more than 14 years.

6. As regards the claim of respondent Nos. 8 to 20 who are represented by Mr. Yatin Oza, learned senior counsel with Mr. Apurva Kapadia , the learned advocate for 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, Mr. Shrijit G. Pillai, learned advocate for the