HAMIDBHAI USUFBHAI PATEL Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per order dated 3/12/1988 the petition has been rejected stating that reasons will be recorded later on. Now the reasons for rejecting the petition are stated herein below :

(2.) Petitioner is a Councillor of Jambusar Municipality. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are also Councillors of the said Municipality. Respondent No. 3 is the son of respondent No. 4. Wife of respondent No. 3 Smt. Jayshriben Shah is serving as teacher in the school run by the Municipality and she receives salary from the Municipality as teacher. It is contended by the petitioner that wife of respondent No. 3 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are Councillors of the Municipality are staying together and are messing together under the same roof and that they are members of the same family. Therefore the petitioners submitted an application before the Collector Bharuch respondent No. 2 herein praying that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have incurred disqualification specified in Sec. 11(2)(c) of Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 (for short `the Act) inasmuch as the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have interest in employment of Smt. Jayshriben with the Municipality. Respondent No. 2 - Collector after obtaining opinion of the. Government Pleader District Bharuch decided the application as per his order dated 15/07/1988 and rejected the same. In his order he referred to the opinion of the Government Pleader and the relevant provisions of `the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 38(4) of the Act to Director of Municipalities (Respondent No. 1 herein). The appeal has not been taken on file on the ground that the Collector has not passed a regular order and therefore the appeal is not competent. The aforesaid orders passed by respondent No. 1-Director of Municipalities and respondent No. 2- Collector Bharuch are challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector had relied upon the opinion of the Government Pleader and the same has been referred to in the order Annexure `B passed by him. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the order is passed mechanically without applying the mind. While passing the order the Collector has solely relied upon the opinion given by the District Government Pleader. Therefore the order is illegal and void as having not been passed by the Collector who himself was required to apply his mind and take his own decision.