ANISHBHAI ISHABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is that his removal from membership of gram panchayat and resultant disqualification is unjust and illegal.

(2.) The relevant facts giving birth to this petition shortly may be stated firstly. The petitioner was a member of Sanjeli gram panchayat against whom proceedings came to be initiated for his removal on account of various complaints, under the provisions of Sec. 49 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ('the Panchayat Act' for short). It appears that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned in the petition that he is removed from the membership of the Panchmahals Jilla Panchayat. Unfortunately, the petition is founded upon a fact wrongly conceived that the petitioner is removed from the membership of Jilla Panchayat instead of mentioning the gram panchayat. Apart from that, the case of the petitioner is that provisions of Sec. 49(1) of the Panchayat Act were not attracted and his removal under the said provisions is unjust, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Act.

(3.) The defence of the respondent-authority disclosed in the affidavit - in-reply is that the petitioner was involved in serious irregularities and offences. Therefore, it was thought expedient not to continue him as a member of the Sanjeli gram panchayat. Therefore, after following due procedure laid down in the Panchayat Act, appropriate resolution was passed by the executive committee of the district panchayat at Godhra by virtue of which the petitioner came to be removed from the membership. He had questioned his removal order before appropriate appellate forum and he lost in the appeal. The respondents have denied all the allegations levelled in the petition. According to the contentions of the respondents, the questioned order of removal is passed by the appropriate authority after observing the procedure proscribed in the Panchayat Act and it is reasonable, just and legal, It is also contended by the respondents that there is no case for interference under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.