MAHIPATSINH KESRISINH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned orders dtd. 30/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional Development Commissioner, Gujarat State in Appeal No. 11 of 2019 as well as order dtd. 29/11/2018 passed by the District Development Officer in exercise of powers under Sec. 57 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred as to the "Act").

(2.) The case in brief projected before the Court is that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Village Laval and on the basis of one anonymous application given to the Taluka Development Officer, Vaso by supporter of sitting member of Legislative Assembly from Matar Constituency i.e. Mr.Kesrisinh Solanki who is belonging to Bharatiya Janta Party. On the basis of such a fake and general application, the Taluka Development Officer on three different dates submitted reports to the District Development Officer on 12/7/2018, 18/8/2018 and 13/9/2018 respectively and on the basis of such reports, the District Development Officer called upon the petitioner to explain by issuance of show-cause notice in purported exercise of powers under Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 57 of the Act as to why the petitioner should not be removed as a Sarpanch of the village for the alleged negligence in performance of duties. The said show-cause notice dtd. 8/10/2018 came to be replayed and subsequently, an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner on 25/10/2018 which was actually heard later on 26/2/2019 and without proper application of mind, the District Development Officer passed an order on 26/2/2019 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the village.

(3.) It is this order dtd. 26/2/2019 is made the subject matter of Appeal under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 57 of the Act before the Additional Development Commissioner alongwith an application for seeking interim relief submitted on 28/2/2019. According to the petitioner, initially despite request, no order was passed but thereafter, on 15/5/2019, the stay application came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file Special Civil Application No.10008 of 2019 before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dtd. 10/7/2019 with a direction that pending Appeal before the Additional Development Commissioner be decided as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.