VINODRAI GAGRAWAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocates for the parties. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, as well as respondent no.4 and learned AGPs, the matters are required to be disposed of by appropriate order. Hence RULE. Rule is waived by learned advocates for the respective respondent in each petition. Rule is fixed forthwith at the request of learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) THE controversy in brief in these petitions are in respect of the impugned orders passed by District Collector in exercise of power under section 258 (1) of Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, suspending with permanent effect of Resolution No. 172 dated 30/7/2009, where under the petitioners were direct beneficiaries. THE said resolution came to be suspended by the District Collector in exercise of power under section 258(1) of Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 at the instance of respondent no.4, though the petitioners were directly affected on account of permanent suspension of the resolution. Admittedly they were not heard nor they were given any opportunity of voicing their grievance or justifying passing of resolution. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance upon decision of this Court in case of (1) Vasantilal R. Kansara Vs. Viramgam Municipality and Ors., reported in 1995 (2) GLH 436; and (2) R.C. Gajjar and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors, reported in 1996 (1) GLH 276, clearly laying down that when the Collector is exercising power under section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, then the affected parties have right to be heard. Admittedly in this matter the affected parties, i.e. beneficiaries of the resolution have not been given opportunity and the Collector has acted upon the prayer and request made by respondent no.4. It was the duty cast upon respondent no.2 Collector to hear the petitioner also before passing this order.