IQBALHUSSAIN MEHMUDMIYAN MALIK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was engaged as a lawyer by the respondent No. 4 Balasinhor Nagarpalika for certain cases. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the bills were sent to the Municipality, however, no payment is received by him. Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Malik appearing as party-in-person, Ms. Kotecha, learned AGP for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. Neha Joshi for the respondent No. 4.

(3.) IT appears that as per the petitioner, the matters are finalised by the Court, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent Municipality contended that all matters are not disposed of as stated by the petitioner, but some matters are still pending and in support of her contention, she has placed on record the computer status report of Second Appeal Nos. 166/87 and 236/91 and others. However, learned counsel for the Municipality is not in a position to dispute that certain matters are already disposed of.