TUSHAR ARUN GANDHI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 01-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 911
911
TUSHAR ARUN GANDHI
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 2660 of 2022)
April 01, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation – Sabarmati Ashram –
Redevelopment of – The Government of Gujarat issued a Resolution
which constituted Governing Council and an Executive Council for
the development of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial (Sabarmati
Ashram) – The appellant filed a petition before the High Court u/
Art. 226 of the Constitution in the form of a Public Interest Litigation
challenging the Government Resolution – The appellant has also
sought a direction that the work of redevelopment at the Ashram
should be “spearheaded by the Trusts which presently run the
Ashram” – Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the petition
holding that the petition u/Art. 226 is not required to be entertained
in view of the undertaking furnished by the Advocate General for
the State – On appeal, held: The High Court did not call for an
affidavit in reply from the State of Gujarat in response to the petition,
before it proceeded to dispose of the writ petition – It would have
been appropriate for the High Court to decide upon the issues which
are raised in the petition after furnishing to the State of Gujarat an
opportunity – Prima facie, the matter is required to be remanded to
the High Court – The Court has not entered into the merits of the
issues which are sought to be raised by the appellant before the
High Court – The High Court would form a fresh view after allowing
the pleadings to be completed and hearing the parties – Therefore,
appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is
set aside – Writ petition restored to the file of the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2660
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2021 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Writ Petition (PIL) No.137 of 2021.
Ms. Indira Jaising, Mihir Desai, Sr. Advs., Ms. Aparna Bhat, Paras
Nath Singh, Ms. Karishma Maria, Mihir Joshi, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Satyam Chhaya, Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms.
Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant instituted a petition before the Gujarat High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution in the form of a Public Interest
Litigation to challenge a Government Resolution dated 5 March 2021
issued by the Government of Gujarat. The Government Resolution
constitutes a Governing Council and an Executive Council for the
development of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial (popularly known as the
Sabarmati Ashram)- a charitable trust established to conserve the
writings, photos and multimedia material of Mahatma Gandhi and
Kasturba Gandhi, its precinct, and surrounding areas. Besides the
challenge to the Government Resolution, the appellant has sought a
direction that the work of redevelopment at the Ashram should be
“spearheaded by the Trusts which presently run the Ashram” under the
auspices of the second respondent, while allowing for funding by the
Central and State Governments. According to the appellant, the work of
redevelopment ought to remain within the domain of the second to seventh
respondents.
3 By a judgment dated 25 November 2021, a Division Bench of
the High Court of Gujarat, disposed of the petition holding that the petition
under Article 226 “is not required to be entertained” in view of the
submission of and undertaking furnished by the Advocate General for
the State of Gujarat. The undertaking which has been referred to in the
concluding paragraph of the judgment of the High Court and the
submission are recorded in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment which
is extracted below:
“[7] The State which is on advance notice by virtue of the advance
copy having been served on the office of learned Advocate
General, is represented by the learned Advocate General and when
the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Advocate General
has appeared and a submission has been made by the learned
Advocate General to the effect that existing Gandhi Ashram on
Sabarmati Riverfront, which is an area of one acre would not be
disturbed, or, in other words, it would be maintained as it is and all
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
efforts would be made even for the improvement of the said
Ashram, if decided by the Governing Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.