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

2008 Supreme(Guj) 201

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.
BHARATBHAI R. BHAVSAR
Versus
DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHERS
Civil Application 6533 Of 2008
Decided On : JUNE 23, 2008

Advocates: DILIP B.RANA, H.M.PARIKH, MINI M.NAIR, N.V.ANJARIA,

Headnote:

Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 - Section 11 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Petitioner has challenged order - Petitioner is Councilor of Municipality having been elected took charge - According to petitioner at relevant point of time disease of was spreading within area of respondent Municipality - Petitioner supplied bags of a pesticide known as to Municipality from the firm known as of which petitioner is Proprietor - It is averred in petition that a cheque was issued to petitioner in respect of supply of bags of Methyl Perotheon Powder which was countersigned by respondent who was then President of Municipality - Executive Committee of Municipality approved supply of Methyl Perotheon Powder from the firm of petitioner to Municipality by passing Resolution of Executive Committee came to be approved by General Board of Municipality by Resolution - It is case of petitioner that even though Municipality issued an advertisement in newspapers inviting tenders for supply of Methyl Perotheon Powder- No applications were received looking to urgency of situation and necessity of supplying pesticide powder to control spread of Chikungunya - Petitioner supplied 99 bags in all of pesticide for which he received payment by cheque, as mentioned - Further averred in petition that it was only after second advertisement was published in daily newspaper that tender of Marketing was accepted at rate of per bag - Petitioner has charged only Rs. per bag to petitioner no financial loss has occurred to Municipality by purchasing said powder from his firm at rate of Rs. per bag a further pesticide powder was utilized at crucial time when disease of was spreading in the area - It further transpires from a reading of petition that respondent who was then President of Municipality, made an application to Collector as Director of Municipalities on to which District Collector issued a show cause notice under the provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act - Petitioner filed his reply to show cause notice Municipality also filed a reply to show cause notice - Held, Petitioner prays that this judgment be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks request is opposed by Assistant Government Pleader for respondents and counsel for Election Commission - Impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with for reasons stated unable to accept request of counsel for petitioner - In view of rejection of writ petition Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly - Impugned order passed by respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and does not warrant interference by Court no merit in petition which deserves to be dismissed - It is accordingly dismissed - Rule is discharged - Appeal dismissed

ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Ms. Mini M. Nair, learned assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule for the respondents nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. H. M. Parikh, learned counsel, waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No. 4. Smt. Minakshiben g. Bhavsar, Chief Officer of Kathlal municipality is present in person before the court and states that the Kathlal municipality (respondent No. 3) does not want to contest the petition, therefore, there is no necessity of issuing notice of rule to the respondent No. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

( 2 ) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-3-2008 whereby, the appeal filed by him under the provisions of Section 38 (4) of the gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 has been rejected, by the respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) THE brief facts, as emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the petition are that, the petitioner is a councillor of Kathlal Municipality, having been elected as such, and took charge on 3-4-2006. According to the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, the disease of "chikungunya" was spreading within the area of the respondent No. 3 Municipality and, therefore, the petitioner supplied 99 bags of a pesticide known as "methyl perotheon Powder" to the Municipality from the firm known as "bhavsar Hariom bijwala", of which the petitioner is the proprietor. It is averred in the petition that a cheque for Rs. 22,275/- was issued to the petitioner in respect of the supply of bags of methyl Perotheon Powder, which was countersigned by the respondent No. 4, who was the then President of the Municipality. The Executive Committee of the municipality approved the supply of Methyl perotheon Powder from the firm of the petitioner to the Municipality, by passing resolution No. 47 dated 6-9-2006. Thereafter, this Resolution of the Executive committee came to be approved by the general Board of the Municipality by resolution No. 36 dated 16-10-2006. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the Municipality issued an advertisement in the newspapers, inviting tenders for the supply of Methyl Perotheon Powder on 5-8-2006, no applications were received and,therefore, looking to the urgency of the situation and the necessity of supplying the pesticide powder to control the spread of "chikungunya", the petitioner supplied 99 bags in all of the pesticide on 5-8-2006, 8-8-2006, 20-8-2006 and 25-8-2006, for which he received payment by cheque, as mentioned above. It is further averred in the petition that it was only after the second advertisement, dated 18-8-2006, was published in the daily newspaper "divyabhaskar" that the tender of Shri Omkar marketing was accepted, at the rate of rs. 232/- per bag, whereas the petitioner has charged only Rs. 225/- per bag. According to the petitioner, no financial loss has occurred to the Municipality by purchasing the said powder from his firm at the rate of rs. 225/- per bag and, further,the pesticide powder was utilised at the crucial time when the disease of "chikungunya" was spreading in the area. It further transpires from a reading of the petition that the respondent No. 4, who was the. then president of the Municipality, made an application to the Collector as well as the director of Municipalities on 23-7-2007, pursuant to which the District Collector issued a show cause notice under the provisions of Section 38 (2) of the Gujarat municipalities Act, 1963 ("the Act" for short) read with Section ll (3) (A) (i) of the act. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice on 29-9-2007. The municipality also filed a reply to the show cause notice. After hearing the parties, and considering the replies of the petitioner and the Municipality, the District Collector passed order dated 29-9-2007, whereby the















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top