DEEPAKKUMAR LALITCHANDRA BUTAALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal today as the issue involved moves in a narrow compass.

(2.) The petitioner contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of village-Butaal one another candidate named Vipul Nadiya had also contested the said election with other candidates for the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner got elected and assumed charge as Sarpanch of Butall village panchayat on 17.01.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Vipul Nadiya was the nephew of one Shri Mohan Nadiya. They were barbering political rivalry against the petitioner and had threatened that the petitioner would be removed from the post of Sarpanch in no time. One Pravin Jayantibhai Vaghela had encroached the panchayat land, and therefore, the petitioner had asked him to remove the encroachment. Said Vipul Nadiya and Mohan Nadiya were having good relations with said Pravinbhai, and therefore, they in cahoot with Pravinbhai instituted a false case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act and on the basis of complaint an FIR vide C.R. No. I-2/2018 came to be registered against the petitioner with ACB Police Station, Modasa on 16.03.2018. The Police Inspector, Arravali Police Station vide communication No.313/2018 dated 16.03.2018 intimated the registration of ACB Case against the petitioner and his consequent arrest to DDO, Modasa (respondent No.3). Upon receipt of communication, respondent No.3 by order dated 23.04.2018 suspended the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch with effect from 16.03.2018 without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner, therefore, challenged his suspension by filing Appeal No.26 of 2018 before the Development Commissioner, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar (respondent No.2). The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by Additional Development Commissioner by order dated 17.10.2018 interalia on the ground that Section 59 of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 does not contemplate personal hearing. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the orders passed by the respondent No.3 as confirmed in Appeal by respondent No.2 in this petition chiefly on the ground that they are in violation of principle of natural justice as indisputably the respondent No.3 had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.