Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing Gopaldas Bakubhal Rana vs Lunavada Nagar Panchayat And Ors. on 4 February, 1985

Jagrutiben Babubhai Shah President vs State Of Guajrat Thr' Secretary And 4 ... on 6 July, 2005

It can thus be seen that under the old rules of procedure, a motion of no-confidence was required to be considered by the Panchayat at an ordinary meeting if it is to be held not less than seven days and not more than30 days after the date of receipt of the notice by the Secretary. In case such an ordinary meeting was not due during any such time as mentioned above, a special meeting of the panchayat was required to be convened during that period. The combined effect of the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 and the Procedure Rules made thereunder was that a meeting of no confidence motion was required to be called within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such a notice and the actual meeting was required to be held not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In the present case, in the Procedure Rules of 1993, there is no such indication of outer limit for holding a meeting of no-confidence motion and the intention of the Legislature has to be gathered and judged from the language used in Section 84 of the said Act. On account of this vital difference, I find that the ratio laid down by the learned single Judge in the case of Gopaldas (supra) would not provide for a straight-jacket formula for being applied in the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Manubhai F. Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 29 October, 1999

The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court was of the opinion that the Legislature was aware of implications of the words, "the total number of members of the board for the time being" and held that the words "total number of members of the Committee in Section 87-A meant the total number of members initially constituting the committee and not the members for the time being. In our view, the words "for the time being" have not been employed by Legislature while enacting Sections 56(2), 70 and 84 of the present Act and, therefore, this decision does not help the petitioner. Even otherwise, the judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has mere persuasive value and not binding on this Court as a binding precedent. With great respect we are unable to agree with the view expressed in Mangaia Prasad as we are fortified in our view by another decision of this Court in Gopaldas B.Rana (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Pushpendra C. Sharma vs Nagshi Malshi Matang And Ors. on 11 July, 1995

The ruling of this Court in the case of Gopaldas Bakubhai Rana v. Lunavada Nagar Panchayat and Ors. reported in 1985(2) XXVI (2) GLR 1047, relied on by Shri Vakharia for the petitioner, is distinguishable on the ground that it was rendered in the context of the relevant provisions contained in the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ("the Panchayat Act" for brief). The provisions of the Panchayats Act and the Municipalities Act cannot be said to be pari materia. It is true that in the relevant provisions contained in the Panchayats Act the Legislature used different words for conveying different meanings. When the Legislature used the expression "to call a meeting" in the Panchayats Act, it meant calling a meeting and not holding a meeting. However, Rules 17 and 18 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1963 ("the Rules" for brief) framed under the Panchayats Act clinch the issue in that regard. The time-limit for holding a meeting for consideration of a no-confidence motion against the leader of an elected body has been specified in Rule 18 of the Rules.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vasava Rajeshbhai Motising vs State Of Gujarat Thro Deputy Secretary & ... on 17 March, 2015

8. It is required to be noted that in this judgment, the High  Court   has   considered   the   earlier   judgment   in   case   of  Gopaldas   Vs.   Lunavada   Nagar   Panchayat,   reported   in  1985(2) GLR 1047 and it has been observed that in case of  Gopaldas,   the   President   was   to   convene   the   meeting,   had  held meeting beyond a period of 15 days and then question  the   validity   of   such   motion.   Therefore   in   the   case   of  Gopaldas, the court had made observations. In any view of  the matter, the legislative intent has to be gathered from the  entire scheme of the act. The interpretation cannot be made  in a narrow and rigid manner, which frustrated the cause."
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Manguben Kalubhai Thakor & 4 vs District Development Officer & 4 on 18 January, 2016

2. Looking to the urgency involved, on 15.01.2016, this Court issued short notice making returnable today. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appeared for the Panchayat and submitted that the requirements of Rule 4 are of procedural nature and as long as there is a substantial compliance thereof, the convening of the meeting cannot be disturbed. He relied on the decision of learned Single Judge in case of Gopaldas Bakubhai Rana vs. Lunavada Nagar Panchayat and ors. reported in 1985 (2) GLR 1047.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1