JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, wherein the following reliefs have been sought:-

“(A) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the reservation for commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No. 388 in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 22 (Akota- Tandalja) sanctioned by Respondent No.1 being discriminatory, illegal, mala-fide and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hence violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(B) In the alternate this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider this petition as representation of the petitioner for variation in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.22 (Akota- Tandalja) by lifting the reservation for the commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No.388 and make the said land available to the petitioner for the fulfillment of its objects.

(C) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 to produce the inquiry report in respect of the complaint made by the petitioner against Dr. Asutosh Pandya, the concerned TPO.

(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble court may be pleased to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from actually implementing the reservation for the commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No.388 of Tandalja in the Preliminary TP Scheme No.22 Vadodara (Akota-Tandalja).”

2. The petitioner is a religious charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 having registration No. E/3952/Vadodara, granted on 24.03.1988. The challenge is to the Preliminary TP Scheme No. 22, Vadodara Municipal Corporation (Akota- Tandalja), sanctioned by the State Government under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (in short as the “Town Planning Act’ 1976” or the “Act’ 1976”), which has become final during the pendency of the writ petition and, thus, has received recognition of being the law under the Act’ 1976.

3. The petitioner being the owner of Revenue Survey Nos.370, 372 374 and 388 of Tandalja, raised various objections to the preliminary scheme on the grounds that the Town Planning Officer (in short as ‘TPO’) and the appropriate authority, viz. the Vadodara Municipal Corporation had committed fundamental breaches of the provisions of the Town Planning Act’ 1976 and the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 framed thereunder, and that the State Government had also committed the same wrongs while sanctioning it.

4. While agitating that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of deductions in preparation of the Town Planning Scheme (‘TP Scheme’) by the TPO, allegations of malafides have been made against the then TPO, who has been impleaded by name as respondent no.3 in the writ petition.

5. At the outset, we may record that the writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen, is the third round of litigation initiated by the petitioner trust. Initially, a Special Civil Application No. 12412 of 2002 was filed challenging the notice dated 11.03.2002 issued by the TPO calling upon the petitioner to respond to the tentative reconstitution plan. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the order dated 02.12.2003 on the statement made on behalf of the petitioner trust, as under :-

“The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 11.3.2002 issued by the Town Planning Officer, calling upon the petitioner to make representation in respect of the proposal in the tentative reconstitution plan. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already made a representation in response to the notice and seeks leave to withdraw this petition with a