LAWS(GJH)-2020-9-830

KHODABHAI JAGABHAI PANCHIYA Vs. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

Decided On September 18, 2020
Khodabhai Jagabhai Panchiya Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following prayer in terms of para 7(B) :-

(2.) Filtering unnecessary details, it is the case of the petitioner that he is resident of Village Jambudiya (Rafaleshwar) and respondent no.3 is Sarpanch of Jambudiya Gram Panchayat elected under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. The petitioner gave one written complaint to respondent no.2 herein DDO on 31.01.2018, wherein, it was alleged that respondent no.3 failed to discharge his duty properly as Sarpanch and he peculated the money of Rs.2,50,000/- of Village Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to the petitioner's complaint before respondent no.2, respondent no.2 initiated proceedings under the provisions of section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 against respondent no.3 being case No.10 of 2018. Respondent No.2 found respondent no.3 guilty and passed order of removal of respondent no.3 from the post of Sarpanch by passing order on 17.02.2020. Respondent no.3 herein approached before respondent no.1 Additional Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar by filing appeal being No.21 of 2020 under the provisions of section 57(3) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. Vide order dated 30.07.2020, respondent no.1 quashed and set aside the order of respondent no.2, whereby respondent no.3 was directed to be removed from the post of Sarpanch of Jambudiya Gram Panchayat.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. V.M.Gamara would submit that present petition is maintainable as per view taken by this Court in the case of Keshabhai Panabhai Solanki v/s. Dahyaji Babaji Thakor and Ors. , 2011 3 GLH 335, though the petitioner was not made party in the appeal proceedings. Learned advocate for the petitioner took me to the findings recorded by DDO and on the basis of findings recorded by respondent no.2, he would submit that contracts were executed without following any procedure or through auction or public notice and thus, the Panchayat has suffered huge monetary loss of Rs.3 lakhs.