JYOTSNABEN M PATEL Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Draft Granted.

(2.) Rule. Ms.Devani, Ld.AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr.Anjaria for respondent NO.2 waive service of rule respectively. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as the councillor of the Patan Municipality (hereinafter referred to as "the Municipality") in the month of January, 2000. Thereafter, she was also elected as the President of the Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that the statutory term of the petitioner as a councillor of the Municipality is for five years which would be upto 2005. The Director of Municipalities issued a show cause notice on 7.3.2002 to the petitioner under section 37 read with Section 70 of Gujarat Municipalities Act (herein after referred to as "the Act") on the ground that the petitioner in the capacity as the President has diverted the laying down of pipeline from Vivek Motors to Karmabhoomi road which was not sanctioned since the sanctioned line was from Vivek Motors to Vegetable Market. The petitioner in response to said show cause notice submitted reply and contended interalia that since there is no residential locality from Padmanabh to Vegetable Market area and since there are large number of residential colonies from Vivek Motors to Karmabhoomi society via Padmanabh with a view to see that the drinking water facilities are provided to the residents if the area from Vivek Motors to Karmabhoomi the petitioner had taken decision in anticipation of the approval. The case of the petitioner is that the said action is also approved by the general body in its meeting dated 22.3.02 vide resolution No.578 and the general body has gone to the extent that since the decision was in the larger public interest, the expenses, if not sanctioned, may be paid from the funds of the Municipality. The contention of the petitioner, in substance, was that the decision is taken for the betterment of the residents of the area and is not for personal gain or otherwise and it is further contended that there is no malafide intention in taking such decision.