Shyamji Hemrajji Shethiya vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & 2 Other(S)

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate write order or directions in the form of Mandamus or

any other appropriate writ DIRECTING the respondent herein to allot the industrial plot to the petitioner in GIDC Chandisar to the petitioner herein as

applied for and restrain the respondents from allotting the said plot to someone else as the same are being illegal, arbitrary, against the facts of the

case and nothing but colorable exercise at the hands of the respondents;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a write of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions in the form of Mandamus or any

other appropriate write pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the respondents be directed not to proceed any further in allotting the

impugned Plot at GIDC Chandisar to any other person or party and not to create any right or encumbrances of any manner whatsoever;

(C) Be further pleased to direct the respondents to produce on records along with all the documents that are relevant for showing the reason by the

respondent as to why he is excluded from the allotment list and why those name who never existed in the list have been considered herein before

before this Hon’ble Court for proper scrutiny of the same.

(D) Costs of this petition may be awarded to the petitioner.

(E) Any other and/or further relief/s that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may be awarded to

the petitioner.â€​

During the course of submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gohil for the petitioner has stated that though the decision is stated to have been taken of

rejecting the application of the petitioner, no formal decision of rejection is communicated to the petitioner and had it been communicated, the petitioner

would have taken appropriate steps to challenge the same and according to learned advocate Mr. Gohil, this has come in the affidavit-in-reply only and

as such, has requested that if the respondent authority will communicate the decision which has been taken, the petitioner would carry out appropriate

course of action either to challenge or to represent before the respondent authority.

As against this, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi, on instructions, has stated that the decision of rejecting the application of the petitioner as is reflecting

on page 27 will be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 10 days from today. According to Mr. Gandhi, the decision might have been

communicated, but he will furnish another copy of the said decision to the petitioner.

Upon such statement being made on instructions, learned advocate Mr. Gohil seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a view to either file

representation against the said communication/rejection order or initiate appropriate proceedings including filing of substantive petition.

This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merits and the contentions which are raised in the proceedings. Permission to withdraw the

petition is granted with the aforesaid liberty. The petition accordingly stands disposed of as withdrawn.