RAMESHBHAI BISTUBHAI PADVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON account of vacancy of President of Taluka Panchayat, Dharampur, District : Valsad, the District Development Officer, fixed 27.07.2011 as a date for holding the election. He appointed Prant Officer, Valsad, to preside over the meeting in absence of the Vice-President. Panchayat consisted of 21 members. There was a dispute regarding participation of two members in the election and this High Court vide two separate orders, allowed these two members to cast their votes, however, their votes were to be kept in a sealed cover, till final decision by the High Court. It is case of the petitioner that prior to the present election of President, the election of previous President Taluka Panchayat was set aside by the court as two elected members of his party I.e. Indian National Congress, were won over and defected to Bhartiya Janata Party i.e. party of the vice President. As their defection was illegal, the election of President was set aside giving rise to present vacancy. However, Vice-President, though, being in minority and having been elected on account of the same defected votes, continued to be in Office as there was no provision in the Act, which would render his election invalid. Hence, Vice-President was interested in postponing the election of president, as he was enjoying the powers of President as well as Vice-President. ON the given date i.e. 27.7.2011, the meeting for electing president was convened at 11:00 clock. All 21 members ( i.e.19+2 whose votes were ordered to be kept in a sealed cover) including the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, were present in the meeting.After voting by show of hands, members of opposite party including Vice-President, raised a dispute regarding counting of votes of two members which were ordered to be kept in a sealed cover. Taking advantage of this situation, the Vice-President along with his members, left the meeting while the petitioner and his group remained present at the venue and requested the Presiding Officer to proceed with the election process and complete the proceedings. Accordingly, Sub-Divisional Officer presided over the meeting and completed the process. The petitioner was elected as President with 10 ( plus one kept in sealed cover as this member remained present with the petitioner)votes in his favour and against none. The minutes of the meetings were recorded by the Officer, and it is annexed with the petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, further, states that after few months of this election, District Development Officer made a reference and forwarded two communications dated 02.08.2011 and 06.08.2011 and the application dated 11.08.2011 of Arvind C. Patel by communication dated 23.08.2011 to the Development Commissioner and on the basis of these communications, the Development Commissioner, vide his order dated 06.02.2012, quashed election of the petitioner without joining the petitioner as party or affording him any opportunity to present his case. On the basis of these averments, it is prayed that the order of the respondent Commissioner was liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserved to be restored as validly and legally elected President of Taluka Panchayat.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, Ms Monali Bhatt while relying upon the reply and the affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, has submitted that once there was a confusion and the meeting has been concluded by the Vice-President, there was no reason for convening the second meeting and suo motu electing petitioner as President of the Taluka Panchayat and hence election of the petitioner was liable to be set aside. The learned AGP has also raised point regarding jurisdiction of this Court in view of the alternative remedy provided under the Act.