PARMAR AVALBEN VAGHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Babarkot Village Panchayat, and holding post since 30/1/2017 and had passed a Resolution on 9/2/2017 in the Panchayat. As per the said Resolution, one lake which is popularly know as "Relmeda" is situated on Survey No. 525 in Village Raiya, Taluka : Deodar, District : Banaskantha and to excavate the same in the public interest in the presence of 7 elected members of the Gram Panchayat, the said Resolution dtd. 9/2/2017 was passed. Upon completion of the said public work, somebody gave an application to the District Development Officer, Banaskantha, that the petitioner is allowing gauchar land for the purpose of digging and transporting the sand collected from the said gauchar land. As a result of that, in exercise of powers under Sec. 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 a notice was issued by the District Development Officer, Banaskantha on 28/8/2018, demanding explanation from the petitioner with respect to Resolution dtd. 9/2/2017. Simultaneously, according to the petitioner, after hearing the elected members of the Village Panchayat, the District Development Office had also issued a show cause notice on 5 elected members who signed the said Resolution dtd. 9/2/2017 and the show cause notice was issued on 21/1/2019 and thereafter passed the order on 14/8/2019. The said show cause notice was withdrawn, insofar as those 5 elected members of the Village Panchayat. According to the petitioner, later on, District Development Officer after granting opportunity, but without considering the facts, passed the order on 9/1/2019 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch in exercise of powers under Sec. 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner also filed appeal before the Additional Development Commissioner being Appeal No. 3 of 2019, which also came to be rejected vide order dtd. 6/3/2021. It is against these two orders passed concurrently by the authorities below, the present petition is brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice having been issued, since the pleadings are completed, the matter is taken up for hearing in which, Mr. Kirit Chaudhari, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the action of removal is not just and proper and is impermissible in view of the provisions contained under the Act. It has further been submitted that the authorities below have taken a strange stand to the effect that though several members were signatory to the Resolution in question i.e. Resolution dtd. 9/2/2017, in which the petitioner is singled out and the show cause notice against those 5 elected representatives came to be withdrawn and it is this discriminatory treatment which is uncalled for in the peculiar background of the present fact situation. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari has further submitted that the petitioner is a innocent lady Sarpanch, has acted in conformity with the interest of public at large in the Village Panchayat and as such, has not committed any act which may permit the authority to initiate the action against the petitioner. The reasons which are assigned by the authorities below are not just and proper and as such, the conclusion arrived at deserves to be corrected. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari has submitted that the very first Resolution was made the subject matter of controversy against the petitioner and as such, initiation of steps against the petitioner is with same strange circumstance to which the petitioner has no idea about it. This being the situation, there is hardly any reason for the authority to come to a conclusion against the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari has submitted that in any case the work which has been undertaken is pursuant to the Resolution, whereas digging of lake in gauchar land is concerned, the geologist of District Banaskantha has also recovered an amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 by passing a separate order and, therefore, the action against the petitioner was not just and proper. However, learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari has summed up the submission by indicating that the decision making process of the respondent authorities is not just and proper. Accordingly, the reliefs prayed for be granted in the interest of justice.