Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4880/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4880 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5706 of 2008
=========================================
PUNJABHAI
D VANSH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT, THRO' SECRETARY & 40 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
HARIN P RAVAL and MR ASHISH H SHAH for the Petitioner.
Ms. Trusha
Patel, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent no.1.
MR MURALI
N DEVNANI for Respondent(s) : 4,
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for
Respondent(s) : 5 - 6, 9, 15, 18, 30, 37, 40.
MS. ARCHANA U. AMIN
for Respondent nos. 7 - 8, 11, 13, 17,19 - 20,22 - 24, 31,35 - 36,
39.
MR HM PRACHCHHAK for Respondent
no.14.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 09/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
Learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that during pendency of the case, having noticed illegal
allotment in favour of some of the persons, those four allotments
have been cancelled. Special Civil Application No. 5706 of 2009 has
become infructuous.
2. Learned
counsel for the petitioner while accepted that Special Civil
Application no.5706 of 2008 has become infructuous; contends that
the respondents should take penal action against Municipal
councillors who illegally allotted lands in favour of some persons.
Such prayer was opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
some of the councillors in Special Civil Application No. 4880 of
2009. According to them, the allotment was made on behalf of the
Municipality and not by Councillors in their individual capacity. It
is also alleged that the petitioner being a politician i.e. Ex-MLA
with a motive to harass the respondents impleaded only some of the
councillors of the Municipality and those councillors who are close
to the petitioner and were parties to the decision have not been
impleaded.
3. We
have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
noticed their rival contentions. We have also perused the record.
4. It
is not in dispute that Municipality second time allotted land in
favour of some of individuals who were already allotted such land,
and such allotment has now been cancelled. In that background,
substantial relief having been granted, one of the cases has become
infructuous. So far as question whether action requires to be taken
against one or other individual Councillor is concerned, such
determination is not required to be given in a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when all the
councillors of the Municipality have not been impleaded as
party-respondents. Further, taking into account the political
background of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4880 of
2009, we are not inclined to make any observation about illegal
allotment.
5. Both
the petitions thereby stand disposed of. There should be no order as
to costs.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,C.J.)
(Anant
S.Dave,J)
***vcdarji
Top