LPA/765/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 765 of 1995 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6107 of 1994 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 766 of 1995 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6108 of 1994 To LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 768 of 1995 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7812 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 civil judge ? ========================================================= DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus MEHTA RASILABEN GORDHANDAS - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JD AJMERA for Appellants RULE SERVED for Respondent ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 23rd April, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M. DOSHIT) LPA/765/1995 2/3 JUDGMENT These Appeals, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the District Panchayat, Amreli, arise from the Orders dated 12th July, 1995 made by the learned Single Judge in the above writ petitions. By impugned orders, the appellants-respondents were granted further time to file counter to the writ petitions on condition that the appellants paid cost of Rs. 1,000/=. Further direction was issued against the appellants to hold inquiry against the erring officer and to recover the amount of cost from such officer. We are informed that pending the Appeals, the amount of cost imposed upon the appellants has been paid. However, challenge is mainly against the direction issued to the appellants to hold inquiry and to recover the amount of cost from the erring officer. We agree with the observation made by the learned Single Judge in respect of the expenses on public exchequer and in directing the recovery of the cost from the erring officer. However, it is evident that in view of the passage of time, it has become practically impossible to carry out the above direction. LPA/765/1995 3/3 JUDGMENT In above view of the matter, we allow the Appeals. The impugned orders of the learned Single Judge in so far as the appellants are directed to hold inquiry against the erring officer and to recover the amount of cost from such officer is set- aside. {Ms. R.M Doshit, J.} {K.M Thaker, J.} Prakash*