AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
This matter is listed in the Prioritised Cases Category. The two learned Advocates appearing for the Petitioner, are not present in the Court hall or through the video conferencing mode.
This Court has not granted any interim relief to the Petitioner. On 7th July, 2014, this Petition was admitted.
The Petitioner has put forth Prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c), which read as under :
“a)This Hon’ble Court may declare by appropriate writ, order or direction that as per sec.75 and sec.78 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and Rules under Chapter XI in general and Rules 157, 158, 161, 164, 165, 172, 174, 176 of the Maharashtra Municipal Account Code, 1971 in particular and declare that the term “Municipal Engineer” does not include “Asst. Engineer” or “any other officer” qua the duties and powers of the “Municipal Engineer” in order to lay the correct law for the benefit of Municipal Administration.
b)This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to read down/strike down Rule 2(h) of the Code defining “Engineer” in the context of sec. 75(1)A and sec.78 of the said Act.
c)This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions thereby calling upon the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to stop assigning the duties and vesting of powers of “Municipal Engineer” in any other officer including Respondent No.3. OR Interim or ad-interim order directing the respondent No.3 to work under supervision and control of Petitioner Municipal Engineer responsible for technicalities till the final hearing & disposal of this Writ Petition.”
The Petitioner was 50 years of age, when this Petition was lodged on 2nd March, 2012. Obviously, he is now 63 years of age and must have superannuated from the Khopoli Municipal Council service.
In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off as being infructuous. In the event, the Petitioner approaches the Court with a prayer for considering the grievance, the same would be considered if the grievance survives.
Rule is discharged.