MANJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA BAROT Vs. COLLECTOR OF MEHSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) shocking state of affairs of the Municipality of Kalol ('the Municipality' for convenience) represented by respondent No. 3 herein has emerged from the record of this petition. A question that is posed before this Court in the context is whether or not what was done by the then Administrator of the Municipality on the day he was to relinquish the charge of his office could be annulled by the Collector of Mehsana (respondent No. 1 herein) in exercise of his powers under Sec. 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the Act' for brief). A further question has also been posed whether or not this Court can take any action against the said Administrator if his actions are tainted with illegatity and invalidity on the face of it.

(2.) The factual backdrop behind this petition may be examined at this stage. It appears that Municipal affairs of the Municipality were in charge of the Administrator appointed by and on behalf of the State Government at the relevant time. A new Administrator was appointed and, as transpiring from the reply-affidavit filed by him in this case, he took charge around 5-30 p.m. on 24th October 1994. As luck would have it, on that very day before relinquishing the charge, the then Administrator has passed certain Resolutions. Thereby he granted on lease for 11 months 29 days to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 certain places on a public street for installation of their respective cabins thereon for carrying on their respective business therein. Strangely enough, all those petitioners made their applications for allotment of such places for installation of their respective cabins on that very day, that is, on 24th October 1994, as transpiring from copies of such applications annexed to the memo of this petition as Annexures C, D, E and G (collectively). So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he applied for allotment of a urinal in the Vakharia Shopping Centre to be converted into a shop for carrying on his business therein. Strangely enough, that application by petitioner No. 3 was made again on 24th October 1994. As transpiring from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the incoming Administrator, the so-called applications made by petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not on the record of the Municipality. Copies of applications produced by the petitioners as annexed with the memo of this petition do not bear any inward number of the Municipality. That apart, by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Sec. 263-A of the Act, the Administrator passed Resolutions again on the very same day of 24th October 1994 granting allotment of places on public streets for installation of cabins to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. As transpiring from copies of so-called documents procduced by means of endorsements behind applications for allotment of such places made by the aforesaid petitioners, the surveyor's report for suitability of allotment of the place in each case was obtained on the very same day of 24th October 1994 and the endorsements recommending grant of such place were also made by the then Administrator on that very day. As transpiring from the documents produced as Annexures to the memo of this petition, moneys were received from the aforesaid petitioners towards rent for grant of such places again on the very same day of 24th October 1994. All these transactions were completed on one single day presumable hurriedly by the then Administrator in the wake of his relinquishment of his office as such in the evening when the newly appointed person took charge from him. It appears that all such allotments made in favour of petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were subject to the previous permission from the State Government as provided in Sec. 65(2) of the Act. The then Administrator found time to recommend to respondent No. 1 to accord his sanction to grant of such lease of places on the public street in favour of the aforesaid petitioners. As transpiring from the reply-affidavit, it appears that on coming to know of such fishy transactions by the then Administrator, some inhabitants of the town approached respondent No. 1 in that regard and respondent No. 1 instructed the Mamladar of Kalol to inform the Administrator that stay against the decisions taken by the outgoing Administrator was granted and the new Administrator was directed to cancel all the decisions of the outgoing Administrator. Appropos, the Mamlatdar of Kalol by his communication of 26th October 1994 informed the Administrator accordingly. Its copy is annexed as Exh. 4 to the replyaffidavit. It appears that the new Administrator by his communication of 27th October 1994 addressed to respondent No. 1 set out various decisions taken by his predecessor and requested respondent No. 1 to review those decisions if deemed fit. A copy of the aforesaid communication of 27th October 1994 is annexed as Exh. 5 to the reply-affidavit. It appears that respondent No. 1 thereupon passed his order of 27th October 1994 annulling the aforesaid Resolutions passed by the outgoing Administrator on 24th October 1994 granting on lease certain places on the public street to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 herein and granting the urinal in the Vakharia Shopping Centre to petitioner No. 3. Its copy is a part of Annexure A (collectively) to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid order at Annexure A (Part) to this petition.

(3.) It transpires from the reply-affidavit that petitioner No 5 was a former Municipal Councillor prior to appointment of the outgoing Administrator relinquishing the charge of his office as such on 24th October 1994. Incidentally, he was also one of the beneficiaries of the Resolutions passed by the then Administrator on 24th October 1994.