^S®"S%B •^?h?:^^'''¥S"-"^'--i'^SS" BB? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No. ^-/3 / /2005 PETITIONER: .^<$ ~^~^"' ^^1^^^"" <(v' ^•r>y"' . s<e>' ^A RESPONDENTS: Chandrabhan Bormate, S/o Shri Parmanand Burmate, aged about 50 years, Member of Legislative Assembly, (Mungeli- Kunda constituency) Resident of Daupara, Kabir Ward, Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS / State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Municipal Council, Mungeli, through its Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ^' Collector, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^ Shri Anil Soni, S/o Shri Gendram Soni, aged about 50 years, President, Municipal Council, Mungeli, Mungeli District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 5../- Shri Shailesh Pathak, S/o Shri S.K. Pathak, aged about 45 years, Vice President, Municipal Council, Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). W1IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE .CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE JMATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. QR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO 3USTICE IN THE MATTER. Betails of the Petition. '^ij^^SS^Wis'^S: K":K':'W-':"^ iRaya-sa ^ HIGH COURT OF CtIHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONNo. 4131 of2005 PETITIONER : Chandrabhan Bormate. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh& Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Sfari Satish K. Agfl!hotri,J, Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 and3. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 22nd day of September, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the resolution dated 28.7.2005 (Annexure P/6), specially the resolution No. 23, relating to purchase ofelectrical items. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for.the petitioner submits that the aforesaid resolution passed by the Municipal Council, Mungeli deserves to be set aside by this Court on the ground that the meeting was convened by the Vice President without any authority in law. 3. None appears on behalfofthe respondent No. 2-Municipal Council as well as respondent No. 4 and 5, the private respondents. 4. Admittedly, the resolution, as aforesated was passed by the Municipal Council on 28.07.2005 (Annexure P/6). But the petitioner has failed to establish that any specific order has been passed afler passing of tlie resolution. Unless there is any specific order, the resolution cannot be given effect to. Thus, in absence of w any specific order, the resolution, as aforestated, cannot be challenged. 5. This Court, in Khatbadan Singh Parihar v. State of C.G. & Others , held that 'resolution' is an expression ofthe opinion ofthe members who have come out to a unanimous conclusion but the 'resolution' by itselfdoes not have the foTce oflaw. 6. The Supreme Court, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr.2, held that the resolutions are mere guidelines and not controlled by the statutory provisions. 7. In Sethi Auto Service Station & another v. Delhi Development Authority & Others , the Supreme Court observed as tmder: "14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an ofBcer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for intemal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that intemal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concemed." 8. Applying the well settled principle of law as aforestated, to the facts of the case on hand and in view of the fact that since no formal order has been passed giving effect to the resolution passed by the respondent-Council, as aforestated, the writ petition is devoid ofmerif and is accordingly dismissed. 9. No order asto costs. W.P.(S)No. 2115 of2009, decided on 19.03.2010. : 2008 AIR SCW 208 3 (2009) 1 SCC 180