KALPESHBHAI BALUBHAI BORAD vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14716 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14802 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14701 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
KALPESHBHAI BALUBHAI BORAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRITESH M SHAH(8405) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAY BAROT, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 13/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Heard Mr.Pritesh Shah, learned advocate for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Jay Barot for respondent No.1
and learned advocate Mr.Kaushal Pandya for respondent
No.3.
2 RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocate appearing
for the respective respondents waives service of rule. Since
the issue raised in all these petitions is common in nature, the
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
facts of Special Civil Application No. 14716 of 2026 is taken
as a lead matter.
3 The present writ petition is preferred challenging the
notice dated 17.01.2026 issued under the provisions of
Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and notice /
communication dated 31.08.2026 invoking Section 268 under
the Act.
4 The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ
petition are as under:
4.1 The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No. 10,
Sant Devidas Society, Sarthana, Surat falling under Town
Planning Scheme No. 22, Final Plot No. 49 and Block Nos. 4
and 5.
4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that according to the
registered conveyance dated 26.05.2014, the size of the
subject plot is approximately 588 square feet / 54.62 metres.
It is also the case of the petitioner that the subject property is
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
appropriately reflected in the municipal assessment / property
tax papers, electric records and other sale deed documents.
The petitioner has also fairly admitted that the subject
property is also having GST registration Certificate dated
05.02.2019 in the name of the petitioner and his wife
Smt.Sangitaben Kalpeshbhai Borad.
4.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned notice
was received on 17.01.2026 under the provisions of Section
260(1)(a) of the Act with respect to the subject property. The
notice proceeded on making allegations and averments
concerning construction contrary to the sanctioned
permission and unauthorized commercial use. The petitioner
filed written objections to the notice on 23.01.2026.
Subsequent thereto, Form-A and regularization application
was also made for the subject property. However, it is the
case of the petitioner that further communication dated
31.08.2026 was issued to the petitioner with regard to the
subject property indicating the sealing of the premises. On the
very next date i.e. 01.09.2026, the petitioner filed a reply to
the notice indicating that the regular suit being Regular Civil
Suit No. 294 of 2026 is preferred by the petitioner and is
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
pending.
4.4 However, the premises came to be sealed on 17.09.2026
which has led to filing of the present writ petition challenging
the original notice dated 17.01.2026 under the provisions of
Section 260(1)(a) of the Act.
5 Mr.Pritesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner,
submitted as under:
5.1 As per Sec.260, the process must afford a real
opportunity to show cause. According to Mr.Shah, where the
Corporation proposes consequences as serious as removal or
demolition, the statutory show cause requirement cannot be
reduced to a generic accusation.
5.2 In the submission of Mr.Shah, the allegation of
unauthorized construction and the allegation of unauthorized
commercial use are judicially and factually distinct as
Construction is tested by permission, plan, area, FSI, margins,
height and physical deviation while user is tested by
sanctioned use and contemporaneous actual activity. Thus,
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
the two cannot be conflated so that proof of one becomes a
substitute for proof of the other.
5.3 Mr.Shah, would further submit that a statutory reply
cannot be rejected by a conclusion which merely reiterates
the original allegation. Relying on the decision in the case of
Kranti Associates (P) Ltd vs. Masood Ahmed Khan,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, and more particularly
paragraph 47 of the decision, he submitted that the Hon’ble
Apex Court synthesized the settled requirement that reasons
are an indispensable component of judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative decisions affecting the rights, and that reasons
restrain arbitrariness and facilitate judicial review.
6 Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Kaushal Pandya for the
respondent – Corporation, has stated that the authority has
issued notice after considering the factual aspect and that
there cannot be any infirmity attached to the impugned notice
or subsequent action taken thereafter by the authority.
Petitioner was not able to justify or rectify any allegation
made against him in the impugned notice.
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
7 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, certain facts emerge on record which are as under:
(i) It is not in dispute that subsequent to the notice
under Section 260(1)(a) qua the subject property, the
petitioner has already preferred a Civil Suit being
Regular Civil Suit No.294 of 2026 and the issue is
pending at large in the suit.
(ii) It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has
categorically accepted in his reply dated 01.09.2026
before the authority that they are using the subject
property for commercial use. This acceptance letter is
appended at page No. 72 of the paper book.
(iii) It is also not in dispute that the impugned notice
under Section 268 of the Act issued on 31.08.2026
categorically reveals the fact that the application
preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of
GRUDA Act is also dismissed. Learned advocate for the
petitioner Mr.Shah was not in a position to refute this
fact.
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
(iv) It is also not disputed by the petitioner that the
alleged construction in the margins is after the cut off
date and it is on that basis the application under the
GRUDA Act is dismissed.
7.1 The fact is not in dispute that the application preferred
by the petitioner under the GRUDA Act is already dismissed.
The fact is also not in dispute that the authority has already
sealed the subject premises. What is also required to be
observed is that the property tax card appended at page 46 of
the paper book clearly established that the entitlement of the
petitioner was for residential purpose and the petitioner has
categorically accepted at page 72 of the paper book that he is
using the subject property for commercial purposes.
7.2 It is also not in dispute that the regularization
application of the petitioner has been rejected. Therefore,
both the allegation made in the impugned notice under
Section 260(1)(a) on alleging that there is illegal construction
on the property as well as commercial use of the property are
absolutely true and the petitioner is not in a position to
controvert the same. The process of filing a civil suit is
already undertaken by the petitioner.
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026
C/SCA/14716/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240732172026)
8 In these circumstances, this Court does not find any
infirmity with the impugned notice under Section 260(1)(a) of
the Act dated 17.01.2026 as well as the notice dated
31.08.2026 under Section 268 of the Act as well as
subsequent actions. That being the case, no case is made out
by the present petitioner and in view of the same, the present
writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIMAL
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:46 IST 2026