Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4768/2001 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4768 of 2001
=========================================================
RANJITBHAI
G BAROT & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JITENDRAKUMAR
K PATEL & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KR BRAHMBHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
MR SANJAY M AMIN for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 3 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 27/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition is filed by persons who were councilors of Kalol
Municipality at the relevant time challenging the resolutions
adopted by the Municipality in its meeting dated 26th June
2001. These resolutions can be divided into two parts. First part
pertains to sanctioning of bills for expenditure incurred by the
Municipality for various purposes, such as for repairing or
installation of pipelines for water supply, etc. Second part of
the resolution, strongly objected to by the petitioners, pertains
to election and appointment of committee members and Chairman of the
Committees. The grievance of the petitioner is that unauthorizedly
and with malafide intention, the meeting was held at the meeting
hall of the Market Yard, Kalol. Such change was made at the last
minute and was done to pressurize the members.
Today
when the matter was called out twice, no one was present for the
petitioners. Even otherwise, I find that this dispute is not
required to be kept alive more than 10 years after the event.
Firstly, the Committees and its Chairmen would have served out the
terms. No useful purpose would be served in examining the legality
on such a decision. Secondly, even the expenditure authorized by
the Municipality by virtue of the disputed resolution pertained to
the works done more than 10 years back. The amount involved is not
unduly large. Payments in turn must have been made in favour of the
contractors, etc. I may notice that while admitting the petition
on 19.9.2001, the court had refused interim relief. Interfering at
this stage would lead to an awkward situation where the payments
already made to the contractors and other suppliers nearly 10 years
back would be reviewed. No useful purpose would be served in
examining the legal contentions raised in the petition. The same is
therefore, disposed of in view of the above observations. Rule is
discharged.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top