9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. The facts and circumstances leading to this case are that the first respondent was nominated by the State Government in exercise of powers u/Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (In short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') as a member of the Municipal Board, ML. Abu by order dated 16.11.2000 along with one Shri Parmanand which order was published in the Official Gazette on 25.11.2000. However, vide order dated 12.12.2000 Yusuf Khan (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) was nominated in place of the first respondent Bhanwar Lal and that Government order stood notified in the Official Gazette on 13.12.2000 (Annex. - R/l to the writ petition). Hence the writ petition by Bhanwar Lal. (4). Before the learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision thereto reads that the State Government shall have power to withdraw a member nominated under Sub-clause (2) at any time. Learned counsel for the first-respondent (herein) con-tended that the procedure prescribed u/Section 63 of the Act has to be followed and removal without following the due procedure is impermissible under the law. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on Kanta Devi and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others (I). It was also contended that the Government is permitted to correct a bona fide mistake occurred inadvertently but, in the instant case, it is a case of replacement by respondent No. 4 which is not permissible. The counsel for the State had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f omission or accidental slip; but. in case it amounts to amendment, then corrigendum is not permissible. Corrigendum may be used only for rectification of a mistake as permissible under Section 152 of the C.P.C. or Section 154 of the Income Tax Act but it cannot be used to change the order or to withdraw the rights conferred up on the individual. (9). This Court in Kandoi Kabliwala v. Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali (5), wherein notification granting exemption to the 'deshi sweetmeats' and 'namkins' was issued; by a subsequent notification exemption of tax in respect of 'namkin' was withdrawn and after some time a corrigendum was issued to the notification withdrawing the exemption of tax in respect of ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal notification. (12). We, therefore, hold that the corrigendum to the notification is illegal in so far as it relates to the vested rights of the first respondent (herein). (13). The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on various judgments rendered by different High Courts and also by the Apex Court. In any case, in the present case, it cannot be said that there is a corrigendum or arithmetical error. It amounts to removal of the first respondent and nomination of another person which takes away the vested rights of the first respondent (herein). There is no substance in this writ appeal. (14): In the result, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the order passed In writ petition by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
