Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2222/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2222 of 2008
=========================================================
VINODCHANDRA
KALYANJI LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED KALYANJI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAJKOT
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL S SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 06/02/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioners original plaintiffs have challenged an order dated
9.1.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track
Court, Rajkot in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/2006. By the said order,
learned Judge was pleased to confirm the order of trial Court passed
below exh.5 in regular civil suit NO. 1397/1995 filed by the
petitioners herein. The trial Court was pleased to reject exh.5
application of the petitioners and vacate the stay granted earlier.
The Appellate Court also confirmed the decision of the trial Court.
At
the outset, it was pointed out to the Court by learned advocate Shri
Chhaya appearing for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation on caveat that
the petitioners had challenged a show cause notice issued by the
Corporation under Section 212 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corporations Act. He further stated that in response to the notice
issued, the petitioners have already lodged their objections way
back on 13.10.1997. He submitted that at that stage when Corporation
was in process of considering the objections of the petitioners, the
said litigation was instituted and it has remained pending since
then. He stated that the Corporation will take the objections of
the petitioners into account and will follow the procedure laid down
in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act before taking
up a final decision with respect to the impugned notice.
In
view of the above statement, learned advocate for the petitioners
does not press this petition and petition is permitted to be
withdrawn.
It
would now appear that in view of this development and stand of the
Corporation, the suit in which the show cause notice under Section
212 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act under
challenge has become infructuous at this stage.
In
view of the above observations, the petition is disposed of as not
pressed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top