PRESIDENT DISTRICT LOCAL BOARD MEHSANA Vs. SUMANT GOVARDHANRAY MEHTA EX CHIEF OFFICER
LAWS(GJH)-1960-11-18
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on November 08,1960

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT LOCAL BOARD MEHSANA Appellant
VERSUS
SUMANT GOVARDHANRAY MEHTA,EX-OFFICER Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DHULIA MUNICIPALITY V. RAMCHANDRA BAPUJI [FOLLOWED]
P. L. DHINGRA V. UNION OF INDIA [DISTINGUISHED]


JUDGEMENT

P.N.BHAGWATI - (1.)This petition raises some interesting questions of construction regarding certain provisions of the Bombay Local Boards Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to by us as the said Act.) The facts giving rise to this petition require to be stated in some detail.
(2.)Prior to the integration of the old Baroda State with the then Province of Bombay the first respondent was in the service of the old Baroda State and his services had been made available on loan to the District Local Board Mehsana since 1945. During the old regime there was no post of Chief Officer in the District Local Board Mehsana but there was a post of Head Clerk and Accountant and the first respondent occupied the said post. After the integration the services of the first respondent continued to be on loan with the District Local Board Mehsana. In 1950 separate posts of Chief Officer and Head Clerk and Accountant were created by the District Local Board and the first respondent was posted as Chief Officer of the District Local Board. Since then the first respondent worked as Chief Officer of the District Local Board upto 21/09/1959 when the resolution which marks the starting point of the dispute in the present petition was passed by the District Local Board. It may be incidentally mentioned that some time in August 1956 the first respondent was absorbed as an employee of the District Local Board and his services with the District Local Board ceased to be on loan from the State of Bombay. The first respondent thereafter became an employee of the District Local Board.
(3.)On 21/09/1959 a meeting of the District Local Board was held and at the said meeting a resolution was passed which materially affected the position of the first respondent in the District Local Board. The consideration of the said resolution was not on the agenda of the meeting but since it was found that a majority of the members present at the said meeting were in favour of discussing the said resolution the President who presided over the said meeting permitted discussion of the said resolution. Out of a total number of 34 members present at the said meeting 26 members voted in favour of the said resolution while six members voted against it and the said resolution was carried by a majority of the members present at the said meeting. It is an admitted position that the members who voted in favour of the said resolution did not constitute at least 2/3rds of the whole number of members of the District Local Board. The said resolution consisted of two parts the first part which was in the nature of recitals contained mostly platitudes while the second part contained the operative portion of the said resolution. One of the contentions raised before us turns on the question as to what is the true effect and nature of the said resolution and it would therefore be useful to set out the operative part of the said resolution. It is in the Gujarati language and the following is its agreed translation in English :
..It is resolved to abolish the post of the Chief Officer of the Board which appointment has been made on and since 1-4-1950 pursuant to section 119 of the District Local Boards Act 1923

;


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