Regional Commissioner, not Collector, is empowered to inquire into and suspend unlawful municipal resolutions and actions.

The appellants filed a writ petition seeking disposal of their representations containing allegations against elected office bearers and members of the Anand Nagarpalika.

A learned Single Judge, by order dated 16.06.2026, directed the Collector to address these grievances.

The appellants challenged this order via an intra-court appeal, contending that the Collector lacks the statutory authority to initiate inquiry or take action regarding such allegations under the current legislative framework.

1. Whether the Collector is the competent authority under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, to inquire into allegations regarding the conduct and resolutions of a Municipality.

2. Whether the statutory amendments introduced by Gujarat Act No. 17 of 2018 reassign the powers of oversight to the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities.

Section 46C of the Gujarat Municipalities (GM) Act, 1963 (inserted via Gujarat Act No. 17 of 2018), which provides for the appointment of a Regional Commissioner and defines their powers and functions.

Section 258 of the GM Act, 1963, which empowers the designated authority to suspend the execution of unlawful orders or resolutions of a municipality that cause public injury or breach of peace.

Definition of Regional Commissioner under Section 2(23B) of the Act.

The Court observed that the legal landscape of municipal administration in Gujarat was significantly altered by the 2018 amendment, which introduced a new scheme under Chapters III and IIIA of the GM Act.

Upon a "careful reading" of Section 258 in conjunction with Section 46C, the Court determined that the power to inquire into the correctness of municipal acts or resolutions—specifically those alleged to cause public injury—now rests with the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities rather than the Collector.

Since the petitioners’ allegations pertained to actions taken by the municipality which supposedly caused public injury, the Court reasoned that the Single Judge’s direction to the Collector was legally inconsistent with the modified statutory scheme.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment dated 16.06.2026, granting the appellants liberty to file fresh representations before the Regional Commissioner within two weeks, who was directed to proceed under Section 258 of the GM Act and pass a reasoned speaking order after a hearing.