BAYAD GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein challenge the legality and validity of an order (Annexure B to the petition) dated 16/11/1983 passed by the Department of Health and Family Welfare in the Government. By this decision the location of a Community Health Centre in Sabarkantha District has been changed. Earlier as per Government Resolution (Annexure A to the petition) dated 15/07/1982 the location of the Community Health Centre was fixed at village Bayad. As per the impugned order it is sought to be changed to Amodra. Petitioner No. 1 is a Gram Panchayat constituted under the provisions of Gujarat Gram Panchayat Act 1962 The petitioner No. 2 is the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 2 herein is a Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) elected from Bayad constituency. Respondent No. 1 is the State Government.

(2.) The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the aforesaid order at Annexure B on the grounds that the order is actuated by mala fides inasmuch as respondent No. 2 belongs to village Amodra and he exerted his influence over the Chief Minister. He could exert influence since he belongs to the same caste as that of the Chief Minister and on account of political alliance. Alternatively it is submitted that respondent No. 2 himself or through other M.L.As. brought political pressure on the Chief Minister and on account of political pressure the decision at Annexure B is taken. On these grounds it is contended that the decision is actuated by mala fides.

(3.) It is also contended that the decision embodied in Annexure B is contrary to the Government policy inasmuch as according to the petitioners the Government policy is to establish community health centres at taluka headquarters and Amodra is not a taluka headquarter. The petitioners further contended that the Government is estopped from changing the location of place of establishment of the community health centre on account of promissory/equitable estoppel. Moreover the decision to change the location is bad also on the ground that before changing the place of location no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioners.