Gujarat High Court
SCA/3940/1988 of HIMATLAL J GUJARATI Vs TIWARI on 5 September 1995
Decision: 5th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3940 of 1988 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to
���Date of Decision: 5th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3940 of 1988
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No
---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Y.S. Mankad, Advocate, for the Petitioners Shri K.C. Shah, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for the Respondents----------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 5th September 1995)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Some threatening letters including one of arresting thepetitioners are under challenge in this petition under Art. 226of the Constitution of India.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. Petitioner No.1 is the ChiefOfficer of the Municipality at Anjar and petitioner No.2 is anemployee of the said municipality. It appears that theAssistant Collector wanted the Chief Officer to supply certaininformation to the Maintenance Surveyor. It appears that the Chief Officer did not supply. Thereupon the Assistant Collectorissued some threatening letters including arrest of the ChiefOfficer for non-supply of record. Petitioner No.2 alsoapprehended his arrest. Thereupon he petitioners have movedthis court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India forchallenging the apprehended action of their arrest at the handsof the Assistant Collector (respondent No.1 herein).
3. It appears that the petitioners were acting under theorders of the then President of the Municipality. I am told atthe Bar that the term of the Municipal Board was over long backand even the Administrator was appointed thereafter and freshelections have been held and the new Board has come intoexistence. It is possible that respondent No.1 also might havebeen transferred and the problem regarding showing of theconcerned record might have been over. It would not benecessary to arrest the petitioners for any alleged breach madeby them of respondent No. 1's orders. If the problem is stillnot resolved, the concerned officer of respondent No.1 would seeto it that it is resolved in an atmosphere which is befittingthe dignity of both the sides. No arrest of the petitionersshould be made and no threatening letters need be issued. Theparties should act according to law. It would be desirable onthe part of the petitioners to show whatever record is calledfor according to law.
4. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat nothing more is required to be done in this case. Thispetition deserves to be disposed of accordingly on the groundthat it has become infructuous by passage of time. It would beopen to the parties to revive this petition in the case ofdifficulties.
5. In the result, this petition fails on account of itshaving become infructuous by passage of time. It is thereforerejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as tocosts.
---------