KAPILABEN CHIMANLAL KOTHARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
LAWS(GJH)-1960-9-8
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 14,1960

KAPILABEN CHIMANLAL KOTHARI Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISIONER OF REVENUE,BARODA DIVISION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KERSHAW V. SHOREDITH CORPORATION [REFERRED]
S.K. MARIYA PILLAI V. MUTHUVELU PANDARAM [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

J.M.SHELAT - (1.)This and the three other petitions raise an important question of construction of section 15(2)(e) of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 All these petitions have identical facts and raise a common question of law. It would be therefore convenient to cite the facts in petition No. 803/60 as facts typical to all the three other petitions and dispose of all the four petitions by a common judgment.
(2.)In Special Civil Application No. 803/60 the petitioner was a duly elected councillor of the Municipality of Mehmedabad. On 18/07/1959 the second opponent also a councillor of the municipality made an application under section 15(3) of the Act to the Collector of Kaira stating therein that the petitioner had absented herself from the meetings of the municipality during four successive months and had consequently incurred disqualification laid down in section 15(2)(e) of the Act. By his order dated 29/01/1960 the Collector held that the petitioner was not disabled from continuing as a councillor and rejected the application. The second opponent thereafter went in appeal before the Commissioner who by his order dated 22/07/1960 set aside the order of the Collector and held that the petitioner had incurred disqualification as laid down in section 15(2)(e) of the Act and that therefore she had ceased to be a councillor of the municipality. All the four appeals filed by the second opponent were disposed of by a common judgment. It is to challenge that order that these four Special Civil Application have been filed.
(3.)The facts involved in these applications are not in dispute. Between February to July 1959 four meetings in all were held viz. on the 21st of February 26 March 21 May and 30/07/1959. There is no dispute that the petitioner remained absent from the meetings held on the 26th of March and 21/05/1959. She did not attend the meeting held on 30th July but obtained leave for absence. Under section 15(2)(e) of the Act when such leave is obtained absence from that meeting would not be considered as absence to be reckoned as creating a disability.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.