VIJAY MADHUSUDAN RAO Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for quashing and setting aside order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Collector, Kheda @ Nadiad in Case No.1 of 2018 with a further direction to continue the petitioner as an elected councilor of Nadiad Municipality. It is a case where the petitioner, who was an elected councilor of Nadiad Municipality, has been declared to have ceased to be the councilor in view of his absence from meetings of the Municipality and the office of the councilor is declared vacant.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on the basis of communication dated 01.08.2017 addressed to the Collector by respondent No.1-a private individual, who is not interested whatsoever in the functioning of Municipality. It is submitted that though the representation was made against several members of the Municipality, who allegedly like the petitioner have remained absent from the meetings, it was only the case of the petitioner which was picked and chosen by the Collector to initiate proceedings and therefore, the Collector has acted with bias.

(3.) As against this, learned Advocate for the Municipality submitted that though the allegations are made against the President for giving evidence in most casual manner or that he has not remained consistent with his stand with regard to two communications dated 16.11.2017 and 13.06.2018, the said President is not made party respondent and therefore, such ground may not be considered in favour of the petitioner.