Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing I. H. Kerun vs Collector Rajkot on 28 November, 2014

Trivedi Amthalal Laljibhai vs Collector Banaskantha & on 2 August, 2016

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 6.6.2001 whereby the respondent No.1 has cancelled the resolution No. 6/11 dated 19.8.2000 passed by the respondent No.2 has been favour of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Rana appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said resolution dated 19.8.2000 passed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No.1 without affording any opportunity of hearing whatsoever and, therefore, same is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed and set aside on that ground alone. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court in case of Vasantilal Ramanlal Kansara versus Viramgam Municipality and others reported in 1995 (2) GLH 436 and has submitted that in the said decision also, beneficiary of the resolution passed by the Municipality concerned was not heard by the Collector before cancelling the resolution passed by the Municipality and, therefore, following the ratio of the decision in case of H.H. Parmar v. COllector, Rajkot and Another reported in 20(2) GLR, 97, the order passed by the Collector was set aside on that ground alone. According to him, in this case also, the beneficiary of the resolution passed by the Respondent No.2 has not been heard by the Collector before cancelling the resolution dated 19th August, 2000 whereby the beneficiary namely petitioner herein was promoted to the post of Overseer. He has submitted that as a result of the order dated 6th June, 2001 passed by the Collector, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Technical Assistant and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been heard by the respondent Collector before passing the order dated 6th June, 2001 and, therefore, this petition is required to be allowed by quashing and setting the said order dated 6th June, 2001 Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Sat Aug 06 01:53:43 IST 2016 C/SCA/6870/2002 JUDGMENT on that ground alone.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Hasmukhbhai Kanubhai Barot & 9 vs Collector on 16 November, 2016

4. Following   the   ratio   laid   down   by   this   Court   in  the   case   of   H.H.   Parmar   vs.   Collector,   Rajkot  reported   in   1979(2)   GLR   97,   the   impugned   order  therefore   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside  only on that short ground.  It is clarified that  the   District   Collector   may   have   power   under  section 258 of the Act or even under section 6(A)  of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development  Act,   1976.     However,   no   such   power   can   be  exercised   and   the   petitioners   who   are   directly  and vitally affected by such order is to be put  to   notice   and   opportunity   of   hearing   is   to   be  given   which   in   opinion   of   this   Court   is   bare  minimum requirement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Hareshbhai Govindlal Shah vs District Collector & on 13 April, 2017

[6] Considering the provisions of Section 258 of  the Gujarat Municipality Act, 1963, as well as ratio  laid   down   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of    H.H.  Parmar   Vs.   Collector,   Rajkot   &   Anr.   reported   in  Vol.20,   1979(2)GLR,97,  the   order   deserves   to   be  Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Aug 15 23:24:42 IST 2017 C/SCA/13872/2016 ORDER quashed   only   on   solitary   ground   of   breach   of  principles of natural justice.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Yogeshbhai vs Thangadh

Heard Mr. Kuntal Joshi, learned advocate for Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the petitioners. As such the present petition is filed against the order passed under Section 258(1) of the Gujarat Municipality Act and therefore, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy but considering the fact that the petitioner though affected has not been heard in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of H.H. Parmar Vs. Collector, Rajkot & Anr., reported in 1979 (2) GLR 97, NOTICE returnable on 5.9.2012. Direct service is permitted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document
1