Gujarat High Court High Court

Ranabhai vs Prakashbhai on 22 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Ranabhai vs Prakashbhai on 22 February, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/2173/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2173 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================


 

RANABHAI
DESABHAI JADAV - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PRAKASHBHAI
BHUPATBHAI MOVALIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
YN RAVANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 22/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31/01/2011 passed
by respondent no. 2-the competent authority under the Gujarat
Provisions of Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for
Defection Act in exercise of powers under Section 3(a) & (b) read
with Rule 8 disqualifying the petitioner as Member of Kukavav-Valiya
Panchayat.

2. The
only submission made by Shri Ravani, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner is that as such the alleged whip issued by
the President of the Bharatiya Janata Party was not served upon the
petitioner. However, it is to be noted that and as so observed in
the impugned order in paragraph 4 that even at the time of election
on 15/11/2010 whip were issued and declared by the respective parties
and necessary entries were also made in the proceedings, and,
therefore, it cannot be said that there was no whip issued by the
President of the Bhartiya Janata Party and/or the petitioner was not
made aware of any whip issued by the party of which he belonged to.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in
a position to dispute the above. Under the circumstances, it cannot
be said that the authority has committed any error and/or illegality.
No other submissions except what is stated hereinabove is made.

3. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition and,
therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.

(M.R.

SHAH, J.)

siji

   

Top