JANAKBHAI KALUBHAI DABHI Vs. MAGANBHAI KARMABHAI DABHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.V. Japee, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Prakash Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

(2.) Mr. Japee, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 came to be suspended in connection with C.R. I 65 of 2017 registered with Khedbrahma Police Station for the offences under Sections 406 , 466 , 468 , 471 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and remained in custody for 12 days before he was released on bail by the Criminal Court. He submits that respondent No.2 on the basis of report of Police Sub-Inspector, Khedbrahma Police Station dated 23.11.2017 issued a show cause notice dated 25.01.2018 under Section 59(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (For short "Panchayat Act") calling upon the respondent No.1 as to why he should not be suspended for having involved in the offence involving in moral turpitude. After receipt of explanation and after affording an opportunity of hearng, by order dated 29.08.2018 suspended the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 59(1) of the Panchayat Act. The petitioner assailed his suspension before respondent No.3 Additional Development Commissioner by filing Appeal No.60 of 2019. The respondent No.3 by its order dated 16.11.2019 set aside the order of respondent No.2 chiefly on the ground that the respondent No.1 was not initially named in the FIR and that alleged offence was not committed during his tenure as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat. He therefore, submits that the order of respondent No.3 is contrary to the provisions of Section 59(1) of the Panchayat Act and petition requires consideration and order passed by the respondent No.3 is required to be stayed during the pendency of the petition.

(3.) Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 vehemently submitted that the order passed by respondent No.3 setting aside the suspension order passed by respondent No.2 is well within four corners of the law. He further submits that present petitioner has no locus standi to indicate the petitioner, more particularly, the petitioner is actuated by mala fide and political rivalry as the petitioner had lost election of Sarpanch. He further submits that the respondent No.3 has rightly observed in the order that the petitioner was not named in the FIR for the alleged offence, which is not committed during his tenure as Sarpanch. He, therefore, submits that the petition does not require consideration.