MAMTABEN SARTANJI MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state.

(2.) This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12-02-2020 passed in Application No.36 of 2018 by the Designated Officer, State of Gujarat, Panchayat Gram Gruh Nirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. The impugned order pertains to provision of Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on several grounds. However, petition on the ground that the impugned order was in pursuant to the proceedings for disqualification against the three persons namely Mamtaben Sartanji Makwana- petitioner, Dhulsinh Mulsinh Rahevar- petitioner and one Naynaben Girishkumar Patel (non-petitioner) and case of all are on the same footing C/SCA/6572/2020 ORDER and all of them had engaged one common Advocate. However, for reasons unknown, said Advocate submitted before the Authorities that he was authorized to appear only on behalf of Naynaben Girishkumar Patel (non-petitioner). There was representation of the petitioners before the Authority and on basis of non-representation of the petitioners through Advocate before the Authority, disqualification proceedings qua said Naynaben Girishkumar Patel was dropped. However, by the impugned order, the petitioners were declared as disqualified. It is the case of the petitioners that the there is absolutely no difference in the case of the petitioners and Naynaben Girishkumar Patel (non- petitioner). The facts, circumstances and the point of law in case of three members were similar. There was distinguished factor and therefore, when the Authorities had taken into consideration the submissions of Naynaben Patel, the Authorities ought to have taken into consideration the same submissions for the petitioners as well. Even if the petitioners were not represented, it was the duty of the respondents - Authorities to examine merits of the case of the petitioners and arrived at conclusion.