Gujarat High Court
SCA/7320/1993 of BHARATKUMAR D VASAVADA Vs COLLECTOR on 22 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7320 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7320 of 1993
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
-------------------------------------------------------------- BHARATKUMAR D VASAVADA
Versus
COLLECTOR
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MS MITA S PANCHAL for MR ND NANAVATI for Petitioner MR PREMAL JOSHI, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent No. 1
MISS ARCHANA AMIN for MR YOGESH S LAKHANI
for Respondent No. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
Date of decision: 22/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Page 1 of 2
In this matter the petitioner who was at the relevant time President of the Mangrol Municipality has challenged the order of the respondent No.1 Collector convening a meeting on 28.7.1993 of the Municipality for considering the no confidence motion which was moved on 12.5.1993. The no confidence motion was carried out by 18:2 votes, as noted in the order dated 10th August, 1993 made in this petition, while rejecting the prayer for interim relief. It is obvious that the tenure of the post expired long ago and the petition has become infructuous. The petition is therefore rejected as made in this petition, while rejecting the prayer for interim relief. It is obvious that the tenure of the post expired long ago and the petition has become infructuous. The petition is therefore rejected as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
----
*/Mohandas
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…