SCAJ/54481/9855 1/5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5448 of 1985 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5517 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= TARACHAND RIJHUMAL NARSINGANI - Petitioner(s) Versus ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR UMANG OZA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 09/09/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. As both the petitions are interconnected and common questions are to be considered, they are SCAJ/54481/9855 2/5 ORDER being considered by this common judgement. 2. Special Civil Application No.5448/85 has been preferred for appropriate writ to respondent from taking any proceeding against the petitioner in Revision Application No.141/84 against the resolution of the Executive Committee, Sabarkantha District Panchayat, whereby the show-cause notice for disqualification has been withdrawn by the Executive Committee of the Sabarkantha District Panchayat. 3. Special Civil Application No.5517/85 has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Development Commissioner (Annexure-B) in purported exercise of power under Section 305 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), whereby the Resolution of the Executive Committee of Sabarkantha District Panchayat is set aside and the matter is remanded to the competent authority for taking decision in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner is served but, since the learned Advocate had expired, notice was issued by the office, but nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 5. I have heard Mr.Oza, learned AGP for the State Authority. SCAJ/54481/9855 3/5 ORDER 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that the matter pertains to incurring disqualification by the members of the Panchayat under Section 25 of the Act and this Court (Coram:N.H.Bhatt, J.) when admitted the matter on 08.10.1985, recorded that the question to be considered additionally is as to whether the State Government in revisional jurisdiction under Section 305 of the Act could exercise the power against the resolution of the Executive Committee of the District Panchayat or not. 7. The facts as is apparent from the record shows that the term of the person who was to be disqualified by the State Government in purported exercise of the power under Section 305 of the Act even if the resolution of the Executive Committee of the District Panchayat was set aside, has expired, and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in examining the questions which are to be considered on the wider aspects as to whether the State Government could exercise the revisional jurisdiction or not. 8. Further, the Registrar(judicial) in the order dated 21.08.2008, has recorded the report of Talod Nagarpalika as under: “2 Talod Nagarpalikas' report is submitted, which is placed on record. The English SCAJ/54481/9855 4/5 ORDER translation of the said report is as under:- “In Connection with aforesaid Special Civil Application Nos. 5517 of 1985 and 5518 of 1985, the particulars about the period of elected board of Talod Nagarpalika, Talod are as under. 1 When the said Spacial Civil Applications were filed before the Hon'ble High Court,the petitioner was on chair as the president of the Nagar Panchayat an his period was over on date 30.04.1986. 2 Thereafter a new elected board of Nagar Panchayat was constituted on date 01.05.1986 and its period was over on date 15.01.1992. 3 Then a new elected board of Nagar Panchayat was constituted on date 16.01.1992. On date 15.04.1994 Nagar Panchayat was converted into Nagar Palika and so the board was dissloved. The government appointed an administrator who continued till date 15.01.1996. 4 Then a new elected board of Nagar Palika was constituted on date 16.01.1996 and its period was over on 15.01.2001. 5 The administrator held the charge of the Nagar Palika from date 16.01.2001 to 11.03.2003. 6 Thereafter again a new elected board of Nagar Palika was constituted on date 12.03.2003 and its period was over on date 04.03.2008. 7 A new elected board of Nagar Palika is constituted from 05.03.2008 and Shri Rangunsinh Bhavansinh Solanki has taken the charge as the president and he is constituted to be a president.” SCAJ/54481/9855 5/5 ORDER 9. The aforesaid makes it abundantly clear that not only the term of the member concerned who was to be considered for disqualification has expired, thereafter, the Member of elected body are changed. Therefore, both the petitions have become infructuous by afflux of time. 10.In view of the above, both the petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous by afflux of time. The question regarding the scope and ambit of the power of the State Government in revisional jurisdiction shall remain open. Rule discharged. I.R., if any vacated. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy