The petitions challenge the communication dated 19.09.2007 (wrongly mentioned as "21.09.2007" in the prayer-clause), by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, whereby, the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has recommended to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat, that Resolution No.771, dated 30.08.2007, being against the public interest, be suspended. It is further prayed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, to forthwith implement Resolution No.771 dated 30.08.2007 and Resolution No.1109 dated 28.12.2006.
Upon the matter being taken up for hearing today, it was pointed out by Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the petitions have become infructuous, as the State Government has passed an order dated 26.07.2010, that has been placed on record by the Court, by order dated 16.03.2012, whereby, Resolution No.771 dated 30.08.2007 and Resolution No.1109 dated 28.12.2006, passed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, have been suspended.
The petitions have been verified on 23.08.2011 and 24.08.2011 and appear to have been admitted to file on 26.08.2011 i.e. after the Resolutions in question had already been suspended. It, therefore, transpires that at the time of filing of the petitions, the prayers made therein no longer survived, as the Resolutions in question were not in effect due to passing of the order dated 26.07.2010, by the State Government, therefore, it could not have been implemented as prayed for.
Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that even at the time when the petitions were filed, they were infructuous as the prayers made by the petitioners no longer survived due to the suspension of the Resolutions in question by the order of the State Government.
Civil Application No.3443 of 2012 has been filed in Special Civil Application No.12630 of 2011 for amendment of the petition. The proposed amendment, inter alia, includes a challenge to the order dated 26.07.2010, and certain other proposed amendments, that may have the effect of widening the scope of the petition.
When it was pointed out to Mr.M.I.Hava, learned advocate for the petitioners, that the prayers made in the petitions no longer survive and it may be in the interest of the petitioners to move a fresh petition challenging the order dated 26.07.2010, the learned advocate for the petitioners started making submissions in a high tone of voice and in an extremely rude manner, totally unbecoming of an officer of the Court. On being told by the Court not to do so, he made certain comments that have nothing to do with the facts of the case, therefore, they are not being reproduced. The manner in which the learned advocate has addressed the Court is not at all in consonance with the decorum that should be maintained in the Court.
Such a situation can hardly be appreciated. Rather, to the contrary. The matter could have been taken further, but looking to the age and standing of the learned advocate, the Court chooses to leave it at that, at this stage.
Let the matter be adjourned to 08.05.2012, so that the learned counsel for the respective parties may address arguments in a more conducive atmosphere as, ultimately, it is the cause that is to be seen by the Court rather than the manner in which the learned advocate chooses to ventilate it.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top