PANKAJBHAI HIRABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. P.P.Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1, Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia,learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2 and Mr.B.A.Surti, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties,the petition is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) THE challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 30.08.2014, passed by respondent No.1 - Additional Development Commissioner, as well as the order dated 30.06.2014, passed by respondent No.2 - District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Dariya Mahel, Surat, whereby the petitioner has been removed as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kathor, under the provisions of Section 57 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ("the Act" for short).

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Kathor Gram Panchayat, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat and was performing his duties as such, with effect from 17.01.2012. On 02.07.2012, one Madni Developers gave an application seeking development permission in Block No.500 -B -2 -3 situated in Village Kathor. On 09.07.2012, the Kathor Gram Panchayat passed Resolution No.161, unanimously, whereby development permission was granted to Madni Developers, with certain conditions. Respondent No.3 (the original complainant) made an application to respondent No.2, contending that the petitioner has wrongly granted the development permission to Madni Developers, therefore, action under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Act may be initiated against him. Respondent No.2 issued a show -cause notice dated 14.05.2013 to the petitioner on several grounds, calling upon him to explain why action should not be taken against him under the provisions of Sections 57(1), 30(1), 32(1)(b), 55(1) and 59(1) of the Act. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the show -cause notice on 29.05.2013, giving an explanation regarding all the allegations made against him under the provisions of law mentioned in the show -cause notice. Ultimately, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2014, holding that the petitioner, being the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, ought not to have passed Resolution No.161 granting development permission to Madni Developers, as the said Madni Developers has committed certain breaches, including that of certain conditions of the non -agricultural use permission granted on 11.02.1986. According to respondent No.2, this action of the petitioner constitutes a misuse of his powers as a Sarpanch; therefore, the petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. The appeal came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 30.08.2014. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging both the aforesaid orders.