iTHE HIGH JUDICATURE PE'EI'riONER Ac\.-4?? "h-^.^' .<* V E RS U RESPOHDfiNIS iii ') . • '^in.n-^ VRII EEriTION UM3ER ARIICLE "" 226 nit op ^gg GOHSTIIUIION OF IMDIA ;!J-HC-22 13HqRf(,'arftwre, fenwp 'i^ -r-\ ^T^T w f?FfR7-3?i^l ^l^-liCn ife W.P. No. 427/2001 t>" sff^i i«nwaftti Ebl»li^41-<'WRTf 'q feCTT Tf3K3I ^'aTRtiaffCT 9/4/2001 Heard Mr. Manoj Psijanjpe, learned. counsel Sor the petitioner and Dr. u.K. S State petitloner/As&ociation vi hukls, learned Dy.A.G. fer the Mr. Paranjpe» .leam]ed c<unsel fc.r the petitioner submits the-t the represen[tation submitted *tos by the 3e Annexure P/7 dated 8/2/2001 should be exsmined and di^posed of by the competent Authority in termsof Circule.r datejd 9/5/1997 (Annexure F/3). At this stage, Dr. jshukla subniits that the css'e of the writ petitioner should co(ne within the puryiew of Municipal Corporatlon Act, 1956 and| Panchsyet Raj Adhin.i.yam. Author-ity should examine not withln the purvlew of M.F, It appears thst the coir.petent ^he case of the pet.tioner and if it is found that the contjenticn of the writ petitioner would come withj-n the purjvlew of Circular (Annexure P/3} let necess?ry order be ps|ssed. I do not express arjy opinion on roerit as 'bte^^—rs "' applicabillty of tbe circjular aforesaid snd also the provisions of Municipal Qorporation Act. In the result, thlsl petition is disposed of witb the direction that the responjdent no.2 - Comrnissioner, Munj-cipal F^ sfs 1 .4- yi ^^^3 sf'ya } ^lQyi =hi 'R?ri3;.3:nt7r •STTq^F ?"??H^? ^f^T Corporation, Rsipur, the representation a period of 15 days crder. ai i~|t|hT fl-mt I? TS^:; T!~iII?R ^ STP^? •3T1^T Bhall examine and dispcse of 'resaid on merits' within a frcjm tbe date of recej.pt of this Certified copy ^cday -——_-2__ Sd/. i \&-<A' &0^\ —-—^5V^ Q^ to\J ?S i-^d ,,^ „ t'^,"' ^' ./y- ,.-., .^ •)v 'y