SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Guj) 120

P.N.BHAGWATI, J.M.SHELAT, B.J.DIVAN
RANCHHOD ZINA – Appellant
Versus
PATANKAR,collector,broach – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.D.DESAI, K.S.NANAVATI

B. J. DIVAN, P. N. BHAGWATI, J. M. SHELAT, J.

( 1 ) TWO contentions have been raised in this petition (1)challenging the validity of the notification dated May 29 1962 issued by the Collector Broach District under sec. 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 on the ground that the Collector had no authority to issue a fresh order under that section once he had already issued a previous order thereby exhausting his power under the provisions of sec. 10 and (2) that assuming that he had such power the impugned notification and the order which it notified were issued mala fide for an oblique purpose extraneous to the purpose envisaged by sec. 10 of the Act. In order to appreciate these two contentions raised by Mr. Nanavati on behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to state a few relevant facts.

( 2 ) THE petitioner at the material time was a resident of village Tankari in Broach District. The local area of Tankari Bunder was declared to be a village under sec. 4 of the Act. At all material times the petitioner was on the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly and was therefore under the provisions of sec. 12 qualified to vote at the election of a member of the Tankari Gram











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top