KESHOD NAGARPALIKA Vs. MAGANBHAI KARSHANBHAI KOTADIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law and facts arise and both these petitions arise out of one impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.93 of 2006, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Special Civil Application No.8295 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioner-Keshod Nagar Palika to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.93 of 2006, by which learned Judge has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent no. 1 and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Director of Municipalities dated 7.8.2006 passed under Section 70 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act holding the petitioner liable to pay Rs.30,73,484/- being loss caused to the Nagar Palika for appointing 26 employees illegally and without prior permission of the appropriate authority. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh, State of Gujarat has also preferred Special Civil Application No.10868 of 2009.

(3.) Shri Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Keshod Nagar Palika and Shri Mengdey, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State Government have vehemently submitted that as respondent no.1 made appointment of 26 employees illegally and without prior permission of the appropriate authority thereby causing loss to the Nagar Palika to the extent of Rs. 61,46,969/- towards the salary which were paid to the aforesaid employees, the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh has materially erred in allowing the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 by quashing and setting the order passed by the Director of Municipalities holding respondent no.1 is liable to pay Rs. 30,73,484/- under Section 70 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners that undisputably respondent no.1 was holding the post of President and he passed an order to appoint 26 employees at different post without obtaining prior approval of the State Government as well as without putting it before the General Board which was held on 28.8.1993 and, therefore he mis appropriated the funds and because of the above, the Nagar Palika sustained the loss / damages and, therefore, respondent no.1was rightly held guilty for the illegal act and was rightly saddled with the liability to pay 50% of the loss caused to the Nagar Palika.