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

1972 Supreme(Guj) 2

P.N.BHAGWATI, P.D.DESAI, B.J.DIVAN
SHIVPRASAD UMASHANKER – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPALITY OF PALITANA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: C.T.DAN, D.L.Kothari, K.G.VAKHARIA, N.J.MEHTA

P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal raises an interesting question affecting the relationship of a Municipality and its Chief Officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows. Prior to the coming into force of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, Palitana Municipality was governed by the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. The petitioner was appointed Chief Officer of the Palitana Municipality in January 1959 and this appointment was approved by the Collector by an order, dated 20th February 1965. Though in the appointment the petitioner was designated as Chief Officer, there was no statutory office of Chief officer under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. It was only under the Gujarat municipalities Act, 1963, that a statutory office of Chief Officer was created for the first time. Palitana Municipality, therefore, on the coming into force of the gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, passed a resolution, dated 22nd April 1965 appointing the petitioner as Chief Officer under Sec. 47 of the Act. The pay-scale of the Chief Officer was thereafter revised by Palitana
















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