C/MCA/1551/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RECALL) NO. 1551 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/5098/2026 ================================================== THE SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LTD., ADIPUR (KUTCH) Versus PREM SOBHRAJMAL LALWANI & ORS. ================================================== Appearance: MR PRAKASH JANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SKUND PATHAK FOR AISHVARYA(8018) for the Opponent(s) No. 4 MS JYOTI BHATT, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent(s) No. 7 MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) for the Opponent(s) No. 6 MR NIRAV R MISHRA(6140) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 5 ================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 17/08/2026 ORDER 1. Present application is 8led by the applicant (original respondent No.4) seeking following reliefs : “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to recall of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application no.5098 of 2026; (B) Pending admission, hearing and -nal disposal of the present application, your lordship may be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Special Civil Application no.5098 of 2026; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s and/or order as deemed -t in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Applicants, in the interest of justice.” C/MCA/1551/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 2. The applicant, Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd., seeks recall of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5098 of 2026, whereby this Hon'ble Court directed the respondent authorities to decide the representations dated 10.11.2025 and 24.12.2025 submitted by the original petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein). The applicant contends that the said order was obtained by suppression of material facts and on the basis of incomplete and misleading factual aspects. It is the case of the applicant that, the original petitioner, who was a Director of the applicant-Corporation from 1995 to 2025 and a member of the sub- committee that took the very decisions he now impugns, is estopped from challenging those decisions after a delay of more than 15-20 years. That, after the defeat of his panel in the September, 2025 elections and the non-acceptance of his subsequent resignation, the petitioner has 8led multiple representations and writ petitions out of personal vendetta against the newly elected Board. Critically, the petitioner failed to disclose his own reply dated 09.03.2026, wherein he admitted that all decisions were taken bona 8de in the interest of the Corporation. That, the impugned order was passed without considering the non-joinder of necessary parties (including allottees and newly elected Directors), the existence of prior proceedings on the same representations, and the petitioner's own acquiescence and delay and to prevent abuse of the process of law, the applicant seeks recall of the said order by way of present application. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Mr.Prakash Jani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant – Corporation, has submitted that the petition 8led by C/MCA/1551/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 the petitioner would not be maintainable as none of the legal or fundamental right of the petitioner is violated. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Director in the Applicant-Corporation w.e.f. 1995 (enclosed as Annexure-II) and till the year 2025, there was no any complaint 8led by the Petitioner and after the defeat in the election and resigning from Director, the petitioner started making representations to the authorities alleging purported illegalities or irregularities which undisputedly occurred during the tenure of the petitioner as Director and in-charge Chairman and, therefore, the petitioner would be estopped from raising any allegation in representation to the issues which were approved by the petitioner and the petition is also required to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the petitioner has not joined the Leave and License Holders and the then Directors who would be necessary and proper parties as these persons are directly aGected, however, they have not been joined as party respondents by the petitioner. It is submitted that the allottees / members and the newly elected Directors of the applicant are also not joined in the petition. 4.1 Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the land measuring 100 acres out of 2600 acres leased was exclusively earmarked for the industrial and commercial use of the applicant Corporation and the policy decision was taken by the Committee of Board of Directors of the applicant Corporation in the year 2005-06 to give certain land on leave and license basis out of the 100 acres of land retained by the SRC as per the Head Lease deed, through tender process. It is submitted that the tender was carried out and various persons were allotted a 15.56 out of the 100 acres on monthly leave and license basis. Subsequently, a decision was taken in the year 2011-12 to take the rent from the plot holders on lumpsum basis. The C/MCA/1551/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 Board of Directors had given power to sub Committee, in which the petitioner was also very much a part of it. The legal opinions were sought by the sub Committee, and after following the process, it was unanimously decided that the rent would be collected on lumpsum basis. It is submitted that the petitioner was not only the Director at that point of time, but also member of the sub Committee. The petitioner had never raised any objection to the collection of rent on lumpsum basis. It is submitted that the decision was taken by the applicant Corporation keeping in view the larger interest of the applicant Corporation because the rent was not regularly paid by some of the plot owners. The policy decision was taken by the Board of the applicant - Corporation which was never challenged by any stakeholders and the Petitioner has now come with a case that the applicant Corporation has suGered loss due to the method of collecting rent on lumpsum basis and not on monthly basis. It is submitted that the objection is raised after the delay of more than 15- 20 years and after having been part of the process of the decision taken by the applicant Corporation and therefore, the petitioner is estopped from raising such objections. It is submitted that there is also suppression of facts made by the petitioner because the petitioner has not pointed out the letter/notice issued to the petitioner which was not responded. The reply was furnished on 09.03.2026 by the petitioner not only to seek certain information but also admitting that all the decisions were taken in good faith, in the best interest of the Corporation. It is submitted that the petitioner himself has made parawise reply to the auditor, wherein it was explicitly stated that there is no any illegality committed while allowing the plots out if 100 acres. 4.2 Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is C/MCA/1551/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 suppression of material facts as the panel set up by the petitioner lost election, including son of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had tendered resignation from his post as Director. However, the said resignation was withdrawn later by the petitioner but was not accepted by the Board of the applicant and it was because of that, the petitioner had started addressing numerous representations making frivolous allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner has made vague and general allegations in the representation made by him and the petitioner is no more in the oIce of the applicant and hence, the petitioner has no locus standi. It is submitted that the petitioner has not made any representation during his tenure as Director for more than 30 years and in-charge chairman for 2.5 years and the petition was 8led with mala8de intention to create harassment to the members and newly elected Board as the panel set up by the petitioner had lost in the election held of eight members of the applicant in the month of September, 2025, wherein the son of the petitioner had also contested and lost. It is submitted that the defeat faced by panel set up by the petitioner resulted in resignation of the petitioner from the post of Director and the resignation tendered by the petitioner was later on withdrawn as the petitioner desperately wanted to continue as Director. However, the withdrawal of resignation as Director was not accepted by the Board and therefore, the petitioner had gone out from the Board of the applicant. The defeat in the election and ouster from both of the applicant, resulted in acrimony and sense of vengeance and therefore, the petitioner had started making representations to the past decisions of the applicant. 4.3 Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner has 8led three petitions immediately after making the representation seeking innocuous relief to decide representation, C/MCA/1551/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 wherein this Court has passed orders in two writ petitions, whereas, in the third writ petition, the notice was issued and the matter is pending i.e. Special Civil Application no.5181 of 2026. It is submitted that the newly elected Director and CEO of the Corporation, Shri Harish Tharwani was also elected in the election held in September, 2025, when the petitioner's son was defeated. It is submitted that the petitioner has, therefore, made personal allegations against Mr. Tharwani, without even joining him as a party respondent. It is submitted that, despite the present applicant - original respondent No.4 having been joined as a party respondent, without issuance of notice to the applicant, the Court issued the necessary directions as referred to in paragraph 7 of the impugned order and by virtue of the impugned order and the directions contained therein, the applicant is directly aGected and therefore, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking recall of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5098 of 2026. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have opposed the present application and submitted that the present application for review / recall is not maintainable and there is no error committed by this Court in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the Court has considered the submissions of both the sides, and thus, there is no any error or any illegality committed by this Court while passing the impugned order and therefore, the present application be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. While passing the order dated 10.04.2026, this Court, despite the present applicant - original respondent No.4 having been joined as a party respondent, C/MCA/1551/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 without issuance of notice to the applicant, the Court issued the necessary directions as referred to in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. The applicant has submitted that, by virtue of the impugned order and the directions contained therein, the applicant is directly aGected. In view of the submissions made and the facts stated in the application, and in light of the observations made in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, it is further directed that the concerned authorities, more particularly, original respondent Nos. 1 and 2, shall decide the issue after aGording a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, including the present applicant - original respondent No.4, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, in accordance with law. If any of the concerned parties wish to make written submissions, they shall be at liberty to do so, and the same shall be duly considered by the concerned authorities. 7. With the above observations and directions, the present application stands disposed of. However, it is observed that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/08/2026 17:39:44