SHIRISHKUMAR MAYACHANDBHAI MODI Vs. COLLECTOR BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the President of Palanpur Municipality. The respondent No. 2 was elected as a member of the municipality to a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The respondent No. 1 is the Collector of Banaskantha. On 2nd July 1973 the petitioner received from the respondent No. 2 a letter purporting to be a letter of resignation. That letter of resignation was delivered at his place by the postman at 3 p.m. on that day It appears that he was not at home at that time. He therefore received it at 8 p.m. He endorsed on that letter of resignation that the respondent No. 2 on account of the said resignation ceased to be a member of the municipality and that the seat had fallen vacant. He therefore ordered that the vacancy caused by the resignation of the respondent No. 2 should be reported to the Collector of Banaskantha. At 9 p.m. the same day the Chief Officer of the municipality gave him a letter from the respondent No. 2 in which it was stated that the aforesaid letter of resignation had been fraudulently obtained from him by another member of the municipality Nasiruddin B. Sayed and that he had not really resigned. He therefore requested the petitioner to cancel the said letter of resignation. On that letter the petitioner endorsed that since he had already received the resignation of the respondent No. 2 at 8 p.m. and since it had taken immediate effect the respondent No. 2 had ceased to be a member. He further endorsed on that letter that if the respondent No. 2 wanted to raise any dispute he might take such legal steps in the matter as he might be advised to take. Further he has endorsed on that letter that the Gujarat Municipalities Act does not contain any provision for withdrawal of the resignation of a member of a municipality after it has been received by the municipal president.

(2.) Thereafter the respondent No. 1 applied to the respondent No. 1 the Collector of Banaskantha under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 35 and challenged the genuineness of his resignation. The Collector appears to have held that the respondent No.2 had not resigned and that therefore he continued to be a member of the municipality.

(3.) It is against that order that the petitioner has filed this petition.