Urja Industrial Park 9 vs Mamlatdar And Executive … on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Honourable Justice Bhargav D. Karia
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5144 of 2023
Facts
In the instant case, the Respondent had a factory in the name of Goodwill Consumer Products and the factory had its main entrance on the Rajkot-Gondal highway. However, account of water logging in the monsoon, the compound wall had been damaged for almost 37 years and it required repairing and maintenance at regular interval which the respondent had not carried out.
As per the petitioners, the water was getting logged not because of their fault but due to the fact that the construction of the factory was at a level of 10 feet below the highway. Petitioners contended that various industries had come up in the adjoining lands which had laid 800 mm pipes for disposal of rain water due to which the compound wall of the factory of the respondent was damaged. The respondent filed a suit before the Mamlatdar Court who then issued notices to the present petitioners.
The mamlatdar however, failed to visit the site for inspection after giving due notice to the petitioner but instead relied upon the Panchnama prepared prior to filing of the suit. The Mamlatdar passed an order whereby it partly allowed the application and directed that the disposal of waste water which was blocked because of obstructions should be removed by petitioners.
Being aggrieved with the order, the respondent filed Revision Application before Deputy Collector, Rajkot
However, the Deputy Collector, Rajkot without issuing notice to the petitioner and without considering documentary evidence mechanically came to the conclusion that documents which were produced were against government record and therefore directed to remove the cement road.
On coming to know about the said order, various owners of industries submitted a representation to the Deputy Collector, Rajkot requesting to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by Deputy Collector, Rajkot, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
Judgement
The Court, after going through the facts held that the grievance made by the petitioners against the order passed by the Deputy Collector can be redressed by modifying the order passed instead of setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar Court. Hence, the Court directed the order passed by the Deputy Collector to be modified to the extent that the Mamlatdar Courts order shall be implemented by the petitioners so as to see that no hindrance in future will be caused in flow of water below the cement road which was in existence. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector was quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Mamlatdar was restored together with an undertaking filed by the petitioner to abide by such order and assurance given that the petitioner shall take care that there shall not be any hindrance in the flow of the water because of the existence of the cement road in question.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
