IA ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Krishal H. Patel for the applicant - original respondent No.4, learned Advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi for the respondents No. 1 to 5 - original petitioners and learned AGP Mr. J.K.

Shah for the respondent-State.

2. By way of this application, the applicant seeks for vacating interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025, more particularly whereby this Court had directed stayed implementation of the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara dated 12.12.2024, directing for registration of an FIR on account of the erroneous information which had been provided by the original petitioners in an application for grant of NA permission was concerned.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel for the applicant would submit that the interim relief granted by this Court vide the order dated 09.01.2025, is required to be vacated, more particularly since the present is a case of providing false information rather then a case of suppressing material fact in the application. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would further draw the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Collector and would submit that vide the order dated 12.12.2024, the Collector having clearly come to conclusion that the original petitioners while filing application for grant of NA permission did not provide relevant facts, therefore, there was no reason for this Court to have granted the interim relief. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that as such, the order of interim relief is of no consequence since by the time this Court had granted interim relief i.e. on 09.01.2025, the police authorities had complied with the order of the Collector by filing a Non-cognizable Complaint being NC/1/2025. Thus submitting, learned Advocate Mr.

Patel would request this Court to vacate the interim relief.

4. As against the same, learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State would submit that vide the order in question this Court while noting that there may not be any error committed by the Collector, had come to a prima facie conclusion that though suppression alleged was with regard to a Civil Suit, yet, since this Court was of the opinion that there was no interim injunction granted by the Civil Court, it was for such reason that this Court had granted interim relief and whereas learned AGP would submit that at this stage this Court may not entertain the present application.

5. This application is also vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi on behalf of the original petitioners. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi would draw the attention of this Court to the averments made by the original petitioners in there affidavit-in-reply to the present application and would submit that while the writ petition was affirmed on 21.12.2024 and the same was accepted by the Registry of this Court on 24.12.2024 and the same has been registered on 06.01.2025 and was listed for hearing on 09.01.2025 and whereas on the said date this Court had granted stay upon the order passed by the Collector. It is further submitted that the non-cognizable complaint had been registered on 03.01.2025 and whereas after the registration of the complaint, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 had been issued on 15.01.2025, which had been dispatched on 20.01.2025. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi would also draw the attention of this Court to the copy envelope annexed with the present application to point that the original petitioner were not aware as regards filing of the NC complaint, before this Court granted the the interim relief. Learned Advocate would further submit that the order passed by this Court, not requiring any further interference, at this stage, this Court may reject the present application for vacating the interim relief.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the order dated 09.01.2025, it would clearly appear to this Court that this Court while passing the order was prima facie of the opinion t