ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner raising identical issues like Special Civil Application No.13906 of 2019 and therefore, at request of both the sides, is taken up for hearing and disposal.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with the prayer to set aside the order dated 18.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.2, wherein the prayer of the petitioner to grant an alternative accommodation to the petitioner came to be rejected.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Thakkar appearing for the petitioner submitted that time and again, this Court has passed orders for taking into consideration the applications made by the petitioner for availing the alternative accommodation under the scheme prevailing, particularly either under the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, 2010 read with Gujarat Slum Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Policy, 2013, which was made applicable at Balolnagar-Nava Vadaj Housing Scheme or at Jahangir Mill Awas Yojna. The petitioner was residing with his family at pakka house, Kabir Tekri since the year 1997. He had changed his name from Jayswal Jiledar Rajjuram to Bharti Jiledar Rajjuram which has been published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 02.12.2010. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there are cases like the petitioner who have been considered for allotment of an alternative accommodation despite their claim was initially rejected by the respondent-corporation.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner states that the policy is framed for the benefit of the likes of the petitioner and therefore, even technically if some documents are not available, then lenient view should be taken and the petitioner should be accommodated.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has also argued that the requirement of the documents required to be produced in support of the claim also includes “any other documents” that the authority may deem it fit to be considered and therefore, it is submitted that the documents like Aadhar Card, birth certificate of the children, etc., may be treated as one of the documents which confirms with the requirement to treat an individual as an “eligible slum dweller”.

4. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi appearing for the respondent-corporation has drawn attention to this Court to the impugned order by stating that the documents which are produced by the petitioner do not confirm with the requirement as per the policy, particularly the Government Gazette of the year 2010. However, the documents produced by the petitioner are not the requirement for considering the case for the purpose of allotting alternative accommodation, as per the policy. It is also submitted that with regards to the case of the other individuals which the petitioner has sited, such individuals were able to confirm with the requirement of the policy by furnishing necessary documents which were within the prescribed time and hence, the case of such individuals was considered. Thus, the petitioner is failed to produce the required documents. Over and above, this is a third round of litigation. Every time, the petitioner is taking same plea before this Court, which may be deprecated.

4.1 Insofar as submission with regard to any other proof as decided by the prescribed authority, attention is drawn of this Court to Notification dated 18.07.2013, wherein in clause 4.1 the documents which are required to be treated as eligibility proof are four in number such as electricity bill, Voter ID Card, slum survey or ration card. So, considering the aforesaid definition adopted by the respondent corporation, it would be worth for the purpose of considering the eligibility over and above three documents required under Clause A, B or C of the definition of eligible slum dwellers, either of the four documents would be covered under Clause D. Here, in the instant case, even after considering four optional documents covered under Clause