PRATAPBHAI PUNJABHAI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be elected as Sarpanch of Khanduson Gram Panchayat. On 12-6-1997, the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution of removal of "chora" and to construct a class room on the said place since as per the Gram Panchayat the present accommodation of the students was not sufficient. On 23-6-1997, upon the request made by the Gram Panchayat permission was granted by the Taluka Development Officer (TDO) for the purpose of sale of debris (material after demolition) of "chora".

(2.) After a period of about two years, somewhere in February, 1999, one Mr.Pahadji made a complaint to the District Development Officer (DDO) that the "chora" is demolished without permission etc. Upon the said complaint, the DDO had asked the TDO to inquire into the matter and ultimately on 1-6-1999 the TDO reported to the DDO after holding inquiry that there is no illegality committed in demolition of "chora" etc. Thereafter, once again on 1-7-1999, the same person, Mr.Pahadji, submitted an application by way of complaint and the DDO once again instructed the Deputy Taluka Development Officer (DTDO) to hold an inquiry. It has been contended that in the said report of the DTDO it was reported that certain irregularities are committed, which resulted into issuance of show-cause notice dated 27-12-1999 by DDO to the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat for removal under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After the show-cause notice, on 6-1-2000 the General Body of the Gram Panchayat, in its meeting, once again considered the matter and resolved that there is no malafide intention on the part of anyone and the decision is taken for the larger interest of the school of the Gram Panchayat. It was also resolved that the old bricks have been used for the purpose of construction of verandah of the primary school and the expense for such construction is not debited in the account of the Gram Panchayat. All the members of the Gram Panchayat after considering the show-cause notice reposed the confidence on the Sarpanch, the petitioner herein. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and contended, inter alia, that there is no misconduct committed by him and he has acted pursuant to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. It was also submitted by him that the decision was taken in the larger public interest of the Gram Panchayat and there is no misuse of power. It was submitted by him that the old "chora" was in absolute dilapidated condition and it was on the verge of collapse and if it gets collapsed, the children who were studying in the nearby school were likely to suffer and as against this in the existing school there was necessity of construction of two rooms and, therefore, ultimately the matter was considered in the General Body meeting of the Gram Panchayat and it was resolved for demolition of the "chora". It was also contended that the debris, except the old bricks which could be used for construction is sold pursuant to the permission granted by TDO and in any case the old bricks of "chora" are used for construction of verandah of the school and as a result thereof, there is surplus of nine thousand bricks. It was submitted that the action is taken in bonafide and, therefore, it does not call for the action of removal under Section 57 of the Act. The DDO considered the matter and ultimately passed the order on 20th April, 2000, whereby the petitioner is removed as Sarpanch of Khanduson Gram Panchayat. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Additional Development Commissioner (ADC) and ultimately the ADC also as per the order dated 23-7-2001 dismissed his appeal and confirmed the order passed by the DDO. Under these circumstances, the present petition is preferred.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Rathod, learned Counsel, has submitted that all irregularities cannot be said to be misconduct and there is absolutely nothing which goes to shows that the petitioner has committed any misconduct or misuse of his position as a Sarpanch. He relied upon the judgement of this Court, in the case of "Kamlaben Rohitbhai Patel v. Additional Development Commissioner", reported in 2000(2) GLR, 1174. Mr.Rathod also submitted that when the petitioner acted pursuant to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, it was his duty to implement the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, it cannot be said that, in his capacity as a Sarpanch, the petitioner had committed any misconduct. Mr.Rathod also relied upon the judgements in the case of "Laladhar Pragji and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.", reported in 1996(2) GLR, 2 and in the case of "Udaysinh Shankersinh Zala v. S.D. Vadera Additional Development Commissioner and Ors.", reported in 1996(2) GLR, 349.