KAMUBEN GANPATBHAI GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Sarpanch of Suva Gram Panchayat, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch. A no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner removing her as Sarpanch which is assailed in this petition principally on two grounds: (i) that the notice of no confidence motion itself was illegal as it did not comply with Section 56(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, (for short "the Act") read with Rule 20(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Procedure Rules inasmuch as it was not addressed to the Talati-cum-Mantri being the Secretary of the panchayat as required by law but it was addressed to the Taluka Development Officer, (ii) the opportunity to speak available to the petitioner in terms of Section 56(3) of the Act was denied to her even as her application requesting the postponement of the meeting was not acceded to. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Premjibhai Ranchhodbhai Senjaliya v. Khambhat Taluka , 2016 2 GLH 241; Suvarnaben Chetanbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat , 2014 5 GLR 4277 and Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and others , 2006 1 GLH 91.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. H.S.Munshaw has invited attention of this court to the decision in PARSHOTTAMBHAI TALSIBHAI CHHANIYARA v. TALUKA VIKAS ADHIKARI TALUKA PANCHAYAT MANDAL in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1135 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 8059 of 2018 with Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 and submitted that both the issues raised by the petitioner are answered against the petitioner in the said case. He has drawn attention of this court to the relevant correspondence between the TDO and Talati-cum-Mantri available on the record of the case He would urge for the dismissal of the petition.

(3.) On consideration of the rival submissions as also the record of the case, it would appear that motion for no confidence signed by seven members of the panchayat was initiated and forwarded to the TDO, Taluka Panchayat Vagra with a copy marked to Sarpanch/Talati-cum-Mantri, Gram Panchayat Suva on 09.06.2020. This motion then came to be forwarded to the Talati-cum-Mantri by Taluka Development Officer on 11.06.2020. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was requested to call for the meeting as required by law. She, however, defended herself instead of calling the meeting and on her failure, Section 56(5)(b) was invoked and the competent authority i.e. TDO in the present case convened the meeting. The petitioner was served with the agenda and before the meeting could be held, she made a written request to postpone it on several grounds. The meeting was, however, held; the petitioner was not present, and after waiting for 15 minutes with a hope that the petitioner would remain present, the impugned resolution supported by required majority expressing the no confidence motion in the petitioner came to be passed.