JASMATBHAI NARADBHAI KOYANI Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief :-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that Jamkandorna Gram Panchayat had, under the instructions from respondent no. 1 used JCB Machine of son of the petitioner for removing water logging and constructing wall of the Kabrastan and had given Rs.18,800.00 during the year 2017. To that effect bills were approved by the Panchayat, payment was done to son of the petitioner, who is residing separately and according to the petitioner, there is only one JCB machine in the entire village and as the same was used in the work of Panchayat after analyzing rates given by different persons. However, on account of the complaint made by respondent no.4, who happened to be an RTI activist, steps were taken under Sec. 30(1) (g) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act to disqualify the petitioner.

(3.) In response to this, a show cause notice was issued on 22/7/2020 indicating as to why the petitioner be not removed from the post of Sarpanch in exercise of power under Sec. 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, mainly on the ground that there is violation of Section 30(1)(g) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The petitioner happened to be duly elected Sarpanch of Jamkandorna in 2016 and since then discharging function as Sarpanch. The said show cause notice has been replied by the petitioner on 4/8/2020 by submitting the same to respondent no. 2 along with all the necessary documents and also explained the procedure which was adopted before giving JCB machine work, but according to the petitioner, without considering the said detailed explanation and without affording any appropriate opportunity, the petitioner came to be removed from the post of Sarpanch vide order dtd. 25/8/2020 passed by respondent no. 2. In view of this, in purported exercise of power under Section 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, vide order dtd. 29/8/2020, the petitioner was declared as unfit and disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch and directed to hand over the charge to a person indicated therein. According to the petitioner, the only grievance is that the work was entrusted to son of the petitioner who is separately residing all together. However, be that as it may, against the said impugned order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no. 1 being Appeal No. 1 of 2020 challenging the said order dtd. 29/8/2020. The said appeal came up for consideration, but according to the petitioner, in mechanical exercise of power, the appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by respondent no. 2 and dismissed the appeal vide order dtd. 16/9/2020, which orders are the subject matter of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.