CHAUDHRY KESARBHAI PARTHIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner, a member of the Mahi Gram Panchayat, Mahi, Taluka Vadgam, Dist. Banaskantha by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenges the orders of the respondent No. 2 dated 20-12-1996 passed in Appeal No. A.2/ADM/Upa-Sarpanch/Election/ Appeal/3/96/Vashi and that of the respondent No. 1 dated 20-1-1998 in revision application No. 305 of 1996 No. CHATAN/1096/3795/G in the matter of election of the Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat aforesaid.

(2.) . The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 27-11-1996 the election of the members of the Mahi Gram Panchayat including of Sarpanch was completed and the list was published. For election of Upa-Sarpanch from amongst the members of the Gram Panchayat, the first meeting of the Panchayat as prescribed under Sec. 51 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1993') was fixed on 2-12-1996. The respondent No. 4 was appointed by the respondent No. 3 as Presiding Officer of this meeting. The time for election was fixed at 11-00 a.m. The petitioner filed his nomination in Form A before two hours of the prescribed time for the election i.e., 11-00 a.m. This nomination, there is no dispute between the parties, was submitted by the petitioner at 9-00 a.m. This nomination of the petitioner was accepted by the Presiding Officer. The respondent No. 6, there is no dispute between the parties, filed his nomination for the candidature of the Upa-Sarpanch at 9-45 a.m. As this nomination was filed beyond the prescribed time-limit, it was to be rejected. This fact is also not in dispute. The member of the Gram Panchayat, Shri Dalabhai Jivabhai Metiya was the seconder of the petitioner in the nomination paper. At about 9-55 a.m. he gave in writing to the Presiding Officer of the meeting that he had supported the petitioner only because he was misled and misguided. He has given in writing that he is withdrawing the support given to the petitioner. After this application, on scrutiny of the nomination forms, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner's nomination form has been rejected. The nomination form of the respondent No. 6 was also rejected. The meeting was presided over by the Sarpanch and as both the nominations were rejected, necessary entry in the proceedings to that effect has been written in the resolution book and the meeting was adjourned. For next meeting the time and date were to be announced later on.

(3.) . The petitioner aggrieved of these proceedings of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the District Development Officer, Banaskantha. In the appeal, prayer has also been made for grant of interim relief and the interim relief has been granted. However, ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on 17th December, 1996. Against this order of the Dist. Development Officer, the petitioner preferred revision application before the State of Gujarat under Sec. 259 of the Act aforesaid. Along with the revision application, the petitioner also filed an application for grant of interim relief but interim relief was not granted.