Gujarat High Court
SCA/7716/1991 of KHANJIBHAI M CHAUHAN COUNCILLOR Vs DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES on 13 September 1995
Decision: 13th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7716 of 1991 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: 13th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7716 of 1991
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 V.H. Desai, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri K.C. Shah, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2
Respondent No.3 served
----------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 13th 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
The order passed by the Collector of Rajkot (RespondentNo.2 herein) on 19th August 1991 under sec. 38(2) of theGujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 as affirmed in appeal by theorder passed by the Director of Municipalities at Ahmedabad(Respondent No.1 herein) on 5th October 1991 in Appeal No. 34of 1991 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondentNo.2 removed the petitioner as a Member of the Municipality of
2. It appears that the petitioner was elected as aMunicipal Councillor some time in 1986 or 1987. It appears thathis term as Municipal Councillor might have expired in 1991 or1992. In that view of the matter, no useful purpose will beserved by examining the merits of this petition at this stage.It deserves to be disposed of as having become infructuous bypassage of time.
3. 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.