SCA/2775/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2775 OF 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge ? ====================================== VARSANGJI K. THAKOR - Petitioner(s) Versus KADI NAGARPALIKA & ORS. - Respondent(s) ====================================== Appearance : None for Petitioner(s). Ms. Niyati K. Shah for Respondent No. 1. None for Respondent No.2. Mr. Dipen Desai, AGP for Respondent No. 3. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the SCA/2775/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana dated 19th February, 1990, quashing and setting aside Resolution No.38 of Kadi Nagarpalika dated 17th October, 1989, by which the date of birth of the petitioner came to be modified/changed from 20/11/1929 to 17/07/1932 and consequently, making necessary change in the service record of the petitioner. 2. It is required to be noted that the impugned order passed by the Collector, Mehsana dated 19th February, 1990 was stayed by this Court by way of ad interim relief and thereby, the petitioner was continued in service considering his date of birth as 17/07/1932. 3. Today when the matter is called out, Ms. Niyati K. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – Kadi Nagarpalika, submitted that the petitioner has already retired from the services on completion of 60 years, i.e. in the year 1992, and not only that, even the petitioner has also expired in the year 2001. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has already retired in the year 1992 and that he has also expired in the year 2001, without further entering into the merits of the case and without considering the legality and validity of the order SCA/2775/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT passed by the Collector, Mehsana as well as Resolution No.38 dated 17/10/1984 of Kadi Nagarpalika, this Special Civil Application is disposed of as continuing the same would prove to be an exercise in futility. Hence, the present petition is disposed of with the above observations. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. [M. R. Shah, J.] kamlesh*