Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9119/2000 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9119 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
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 ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
PRITAMDAS
VISHANDAS TRILOKANI AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MS SEJAL K
MANDAVIA for
the Petitioners
MS MONALI BHATT, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR MURNI DEVNANANI, for Respondent(s) :
3,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 4 - 5, 7,11 - 13.
MR PH
PATHAK for Respondent(s) : 6,8 -
10.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 29/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside
impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in
Reference Case Nos. 193/1999, 194/1999, 211/1999, 212/1999 and
213/1999 dated 26.4.2000. The petitioners have also prayed for the
direction to respondent No.2 to remove the President and Vice
President of the Municipal Borough from their posts under Section 37
of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and to take action against the
President and Vice President for making wrong compromises.
2. This
Court has passed an order on 5.7.2001, wherein it is observed that
the term of the Municipality has already come to an end by efflux of
time on 24.1.2001 and hence prayer (C) has become infructuous. So far
as prayer (B) is concerned, the Municipality has also challenged the
impugned award before this Court and this Court vide its order dated
13.12.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.1049 of 2002 and
other cognate matters quashed and set aside the impugned award.
3. Mr.
Murli N. Devnani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent
No.3-Bantwa Nagar Palika, has submitted that in view of the said
decision, the present petition no longer survives and it has become
infructuous.
4. In the
above view of the matter, prayer (B), which only survives, has become
infructuous as the impugned award has already been quashed and set
aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged
without any order as to costs.
(K.A.
PUJ, J.)
omkar
Top