HAJRABEN ADAM GIRNARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Application No.2806 of 2000 has not been placed on the Board. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the papers of this civil application have been called. In the civil application, prayer has been made by petitioners for grant of permission to amend the special civil application as proposed therein. This proposed amendment in the pleadings has been considered. As the averments proposed to be incorporated in the special civil application by amendment thereof have been considered now this civil application stands disposed of accordingly.

(2.) Rule. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service of Rule on behalf of respondents.

(3.) The petitioners were elected as councillors of Mangrol Municipality as independent candidates from the constituency reserved for women candidates. On 29.8.97, a notice was given to the petitioners by respondent No.3 under section 38 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them under this Section with regard to the employment of their relatives as daily wagers in Mangrol Municipality. On 2.9.97, the petitioners submitted detailed reply to the aforesaid notice to the respondent No.3. On 4.9.97, the respondent No.3 passed an order under which both the petitioners were declared to be disqualified to continue as councillors of Mangrol Municipality. Against this order of respondent No.3, the petitioners preferred appeal u/s.38(4) of the Act aforesaid before the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State, the respondent No.2 herein. Along with the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for grant of stay of the operation of the order of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 declined to grant exparte stay. The petitioners challenged the order of respondent No.2 declining to grant exparte stay in this court by filing special civil application No.6678 of 1997. On 11.9.97, the special civil application No.6678 of 1997 came to be disposed of by this court with the observations that the Director of Municipalities is expected to take appropriate decision about the interim relief. On 12.9.97, the respondent No.2 rejected the stay application of the petitioner. That order has been challenged by petitioners in this court in special civil application No.7234 of 1997. That petition came to be disposed of on 7.10.97 with direction to respondent No.2 to hear and decide the appeal of the petitioners on or before 24th October 1997. On 22.10.97, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by respondent No.2. Hence this special civil application.