CHANDUBHAI AMBARAM JULASANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners herein were the elected members of Sanali Gram Panchayat. At the relevant point of time petitioner no. 1 was elected as Deputy Sarpanch of the said Panchayat, whereas respondent no. 6 was elected as the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. As the members of the said Panchayat were dissatisfied with the functioning of respondent no. 6, respondents nos. 5 & 6 vide notice dated 11.02.2010 called a meeting of the members of the Panchayat. Pursuant to the said notice, respondent no. 5 called upon respondent no. 6 to convene the meeting of the members. On 25.02.2010, a meeting was convened and all the members of the Panchayat including respondent no. 3 were present. In the said meeting No Confidence Motion was passed and 2/3rd majority approved the same. Pursuant to the passing of No Confidence Motion, respondent no. 5 informed respondent no. 4 about the same and respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 08.03.2010 intimated respondent no. 5 to hand over the charge of Sarpanch to petitioner no. 1. Thereafter, respondent no.5 vide letter dated 08.03.2010 informed respondent no. 6 to hand over the charge to petitioner no. 1. Pursuant thereto, respondent no. 6 handed over the charge of Sarpanch to petitioner no. 1.

(3.) Mr. Bharda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 11.03.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 staying the operation of the Resolution dated 25.02.2010 of No Confidence Motion is bad in law, unjust, perverse and without authority of law. He has contended that the said order is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Geetaben L. Rathwa v. State of Gujarat reported in 2005(9)GHJ 414 [= 2005 JX (Guj) 187 : 2005 GLHEL-HC 203618], more particularly para 15, which reads as under :- 15. When the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision, in any case, the interim order passed by the State Government prohibiting the Panchayat from filling up the post of President and Vice-President until finalisation of the appeal under Section 249(4) of the Act could not have been passed. Further, once the statute has expressly provided for the contingencies of treating the office as vacant upon the expiry of the period of three days from carrying of the motion of no-confidence, no such order could have been passed even otherwise also by the State Government which results into nullifying the express provisions made by the legislature. Normally, in a matter where the motion of no-confidence is carried by the requisite majority, post of President of Taluka Panchayat cannot be allowed to be kept vacant by such an interim order and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that the interim directions given by the State Government is not only without any jurisdiction, but even otherwise also is ex-facie arbitrary and running counter to the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the order passed by the State Government to that extent also deserves to be quashed and set aside.