THE SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LTD., ADIPUR (KUTCH)versusPREM SOBHRAJMAL LALWANI

      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.”



                                    Page 1 of 7
     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


                                    Page 2 of 7
      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


                                 Page 3 of 7
      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


                                Page 4 of 7
      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,


                                Page 5 of 7
     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,


                                Page 6 of 7
        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



                                                    Page 7 of 7