JUDGMENT :

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.

Heard learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner has by way of this petition approached this Court invoking provisions of Contempt of Court's Act with following prayers.

"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to punish Shri Prashant K. Parikh, the Chief Officer, Nadiad Nagar Palika, Nadiad, District Kheda, the respondent herein, for wilful, deliberate contempt of court in not complying with the Order dated 2912014 passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in L.P.A. No.1089 of 1999,

(B) Be further pleased to direct the respondent to purge contempt by complying with the Order dated 2912014 passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in L.P.A. No.1089 of 1999,

(C) Any other and further relief as may be deemed fit just and proper may be granted in the interest of justice,"

2. The facts in brief, as could be gathered from the memo and the annexures would indicate that the petitioner at the relevant time had moved the concerned Collector for seeking redressal in respect of the orders passed by the Nadiad Nagar Palika in which without following the procedure of law or in ignorance of the relevant rules, it would alleged that the promotions and appointments were made. This resolution of Nagarpalika were subject matter of scrutiny by the concerned District Collector, who issued order under Section - 258 (3) of the Municipality Act, which is said to be assailed by those, who are affected, by way of Special Civil Application No.10751 of 1996, in which this Court vide order dated 23rd July 1999 observed that the Collector's order was not required to be interfered with in any manner, as in case if the Collector's orders were not quashed and set aside, it would amount to perpetuating the illegalities, which were quashed and set aside by the Collector, as two orders of Nagarpalika were stayed. Hence, the petition was dismissed. It would be most appropriate to set out the observations of the learned Single Judge and the final order from the order dated 23rd July 1999, which reads as under :

"......8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has only felt contended by raising a too technical contention that the District Collector has no jurisdiction in this matter. However, I do not consider it to be necessary in this case to go on and decide this question for the reason that where the appointments by promotions of the petitioners were contrary to the rules, this Court only on this ground cannot interfere with the order of the District Collector, Kheda. It is well settled law that this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari where the quashing of the order challenged therein will result in restoration of an illegal order. The promotion which have been given to the petitioners are illegal as being contrary to rules and in case the order of District Collector, Kheda is quashed and set aside, on the ground as what the learned counsel for the petitioners contended, then this court will restore the illegal promotions, that is, it will perpetuate illegality, which cannot be done by this Court. Reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 828, two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan and Anr. reported in AIR 1980 RAJ. 1 and in the case of Himmat Jain v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1994 RAJ.53, two decisions of the Patna High Court in the case of Devendra Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 Patna 166 and in the case of Chintamani Sharan Nath v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1990 Patna 165 and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.M. Mani v. State Electricity Board reported in AIR 1963 Kerala 76.

9. In the result, this special civil application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this Court stands vacated. No order