MANISHBHAI VINODBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the notice was issued for final disposal matter is taken for final hearing today.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Sarpanch of Uttarsananda Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the budget was initially prepared, it was approved by the Gram Sabha and thereafter it was placed for approval in the meeeting of the Gram Panchayat on 24.3.04 and the same was not passed on account of certain disgruntled members of the Gram Panchayat who did not support the budget. It also appears that thereafter the budget was placed once again for approval on 31.3.04 and the same was also not passed. It may be recorded that in the meeting on 24.3.04 only 4 persons supported the budget, whereas 8 members of the Gram Panchayat opposed the budget. Even on 31.3.04 five members of the Gram Panchayat supported the budget whereas it was opposed by seven members of the Gram Panchayat. Consequently the budget was not passed and therefore notice for dissolution of the Gram Panchayat under section 253 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued by the Development Commissioner on the ground that the Panchayat has failed to perform its duties and has become incompetent to perform its duties. The petitioner submitted reply and when the hearing took place before the Development Commissioner and even when the order was passed by the Development Commissioner on 31.7.04 the budget was not passed and therefore the Development Commissioner found that the Panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties and was not in a position to discharge the duties duly assigned to it under the Act and that there are no reasons expresly mentioned for not getting approval of the majority for not passing the budget and therefore ultimately the Development Commissioner passed the order for dissolution of the Gram Panchayat and the Administrator is appointed to look after the affairs of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioner, under the circumstances has approached this court challenging the order of the Development Commissioner.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the budget thereafter has been passed on 3.8.04 with the support of four members and the other members of the Gram Panchayat did not remain present. However, it is the case of the respondent Nos 2 and 6 that when the aforesaid meeting was convened on 3.8.04 there was no communication and the budget passed is not by way of genuine resolution. It appears that there is no dispute on the point that the resolution, dated 3.8.04 for passing of the budget is suspended by the Taluka Development Officer and the petitioner has carried the matter before the District Development Officer and the fact remains that the resolution, dated 3.8.04 for passing the budget as on today is suspended and can not be said to be in operation in the eye of law.