Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 70 in Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Haresh Octroi Co. vs S. Ramabhadran And Ors. on 8 November, 1979
The decision in case of "Haresh Octroi Co. v. S. Ramabhadran and Ors." (supra) was a matter pertaining to the grant of octroi contract by a Gram Panchayat to the Octroi Contractor and, therefore, as such the same cannot be made applicable in a matter where the motion of no-confidence is to be carried or otherwise by the elected representatives of Panchayat. Further, as observed earlier it is not the matter where only finality is attached by the legislature as per Section 70(2), but the legislature itself has provided for further contingencies thereupon of cessation of the office and a deeming fiction that the office shall be deemed to be vacant. Therefore, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the reliance placed upon the said decision is ill-founded.
Section 122 in Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Patel Manubhai Khodidas vs Sonara And Ors. on 1 May, 1989
Further, the proceeding shows that in all there were 21 members of the Panchayat and 18 members remained present at the meeting and 15 members supported the motion of no-confidence and, therefore, the motion is carried by the majority of not less than 2/3rd. Therefore, even if the petitioner had remained present and opposed the motion, it would have made hardly any difference so far as carrying of the motion by the majority of not less than 2/3rds of the then members of the Panchayat was concerned. Therefore, I find that it cannot be said that any serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, merely because the petitioner could not remain present at the meeting for addressing the house when the motion was considered in the meeting dated 24.9.2003. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to certain observations of this Court in the case of "Patel Manubhai Khodidas v. Shri Sonara and Ors.", reported in 1989(2) GLR, 1215 and it deserves to be recorded that the observations were made by this Court in the aforesaid decision based on the observations of Division Bench of this Court in the LPA No. 223/1988 decided on 21.6.1988 in the case of "Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai v. Upleta Municipality".
Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai vs Upleta Municipality And Anr. on 1 June, 1988
Further, the proceeding shows that in all there were 21 members of the Panchayat and 18 members remained present at the meeting and 15 members supported the motion of no-confidence and, therefore, the motion is carried by the majority of not less than 2/3rd. Therefore, even if the petitioner had remained present and opposed the motion, it would have made hardly any difference so far as carrying of the motion by the majority of not less than 2/3rds of the then members of the Panchayat was concerned. Therefore, I find that it cannot be said that any serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, merely because the petitioner could not remain present at the meeting for addressing the house when the motion was considered in the meeting dated 24.9.2003. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to certain observations of this Court in the case of "Patel Manubhai Khodidas v. Shri Sonara and Ors.", reported in 1989(2) GLR, 1215 and it deserves to be recorded that the observations were made by this Court in the aforesaid decision based on the observations of Division Bench of this Court in the LPA No. 223/1988 decided on 21.6.1988 in the case of "Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai v. Upleta Municipality".
Section 36 in Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1