ANITA Y ADHYARU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.C.B.Upadhyaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1,2 and 4. Respondent No.3(Chief Officer,Padra Nagarpalika) has been served but none appears on his behalf. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, challenging order dated 20-7-2009 passed by the Director of Municipalities (respondent No.2), whereby, in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964,the petitioners have been removed as Councillors of Padra Municipality.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that both the petitioners are Councillors of Padra Municipality, having been elected as such, in the year 2005. In the year 2005, Padra Municipality received a grant of Rs. 30 lacs from the State Government under the Padra Underground Drainage Scheme, for laying disposal lines of underground drainage. The said Municipality called for tenders by passing a Resolution to this effect. The tender of one M/s.Dayal Builders, Vadodara, was accepted. In this regard, a contract was entered into with the Contractor wherein, according to respondent-authorities, no witnesses have appended their signatures. However, it is the say of the respondent-authorities that petitioner No.1 Anita Y.Adhyaru, and petitioner No.2 Chetankumar Manilal Patel, have appended their signatures on the said document later on, and have thereby tampered with the official record. In this regard, FIR No.I-102 of 2008, dated 27-5-2008 came to be registered against the petitioners, under the provisions of Sections 167,465,467,468,471,409 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,in the concerned Police Station. Thereafter,a show cause notice dated 28-7-2008 was issued to the petitioners, calling upon them to render their explanation as to why they should not be removed as Councillors, under the provisions of Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964 ("The Act" for short). The petitioners replied to the said show cause notice on 11-8-2008, denying the allegations made against them. The explanation of the petitioners was not accepted by respondent No.2 who, after considering the contents of the show cause notice and the reply filed by the petitioners, came to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioners are borne out. According to the said authority, the petitioners are found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of their duties and of disgraceful conduct, therefore, by order dated 20-07-2009 the petitioners were directed to be removed as Councillors. It is in the above context that the petitioners have approached this Court, by challenging the above-mentioned order.