C/MCA/1549/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RECALL) NO. 1549 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/5145/2026 ================================================== THE SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LTD. 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 NIRAV R MISHRA(6140) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Opponent(s) No. 6 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 7led 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.5145 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.5145 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/1549/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 2. The present application has been 7led by The Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. (original respondent no.4) seeking recall of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5145/2026, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to decide the representation dated 21.11.2025 submitted by the original petitioner. The applicant contends that the said order was obtained by suppression of material facts, non-joinder of necessary parties, and on the basis of incomplete and misleading factual aspects. It is the case of the applicant that the original petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) served as a Director of the applicant-Corporation for more than 30 years (from 1995) and after his panel lost the election in September, 2025 and his resignation withdrawal was rejected by the Board, he started making frivolous representations. That, the petitioner has no locus standi and the allegations are vague in general and politically motivated, the necessary parties (including Gandhidham Development Authority, Banks, and Plot Owners) have not been joined, and the representation had already been responded to vide communications dated 04.12.2025 and 24.04.2026. In view of the material suppression and abuse of process, the applicant invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 of the CPC to recall the order dated 10.04.2026 in the interest of justice. 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 7led by the petitioner would not be maintainable as none of the legal or fundamental right of the petitioner is violated. It is submitted that the C/MCA/1549/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 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 7led 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 further submitted that the petitioner has not joined necessary and proper parties viz., Gandhidham Development Authority, Mr Lalit Vidhani, Banks and plot owners who would be necessary and proper parties and if the process is initiated by the authorities, these persons would be directly aHected and hence, they are necessary and proper parties who ought to have been joined. These aHected parties have not been joined by the petitioner deliberately in the petition. 4.1 Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is 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 representations 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 C/MCA/1549/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 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 7led with mala7de 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. 4.2 Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner has 7led three petitions immediately after making the representation seeking innocuous relief to decide representation, 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 petitioner has, therefore, made personal allegations against Mr.Lalit Vidhani, the Director and Dy. Chairman of the applicant- Corporation 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 C/MCA/1549/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 impugned order and the directions contained therein, the applicant is directly aHected 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. 5145 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, 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 aHected. 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 aHording 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 C/MCA/1549/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2026 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 17:38:38