GULAMBHAI AMIBHAI PARASARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners members of Vankaner Taluka Panchayat have challenged the order dated 7.8.2013 and the order dated 9.10.2013 passed by respondents No.2 and 3 respectively.

(2.) BY order dated 7.8.2013, the petitioners are removed as members of the taluka panchayat in exercise of the powers under section 71 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ("the Act"). Such order has come to be confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 9.10.2013 in appeal No. 1 of 2013. It appears that the petitioners were served with the show cause notice dated 7.5.2013 asking the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners should not be removed as members of the taluka panchayat in exercise of the powers under section 71(1) of the Act. Such notice is issued on the allegation, as stated therein, that the petitioners misbehaved with the wife of the Taluka Development Officer and hurled abusive words and thereby abused their position as members of the Taluka Panchayat. The petitioners gave reply dated 6.6.2013 to the show cause notice stating that it was the Taluka Development Officer who was not permitting the President and the members of the Taluka Panchayat to do public works and that the petitioners and the president of the Taluka Panchayat were being threatened of filing complaint under the Atrocity Act and that they have not committed any act of misbehaviour with the wife of the Taluka Development Officer. It appears that the allegation made in the show cause notice were based on the FIR lodged by Laxmiben, wife of Kaljibhai Bhagora.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Chirag Patel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the FIR lodged by the wife of the Taluka Development Officer was nothing but counter blast of the complaint made by the President of the Taluka Panchayat to the Police Inspector on prior date. Mr. Patel submitted that except taking base of the FIR to initiate the proceedings under sec. 71 of the Act against the petitioners, the petitioners are not alleged to have committed any misconduct or indulged into disgraceful conduct or committed any persistent default or abused their position as members of the Taluka Panchayat. Mr. Patel submitted that just on account of bare allegations made in the FIR about the alleged harassment and abusive words by the petitioners to the wife of the Taluka Development Officer, powers under sec. 71 of the Act are exercised by the respondent No.2. Mr. Patel submitted that simply lodging of FIR that too by the wife of the Taluka Development Officer cannot be a ground for exercise of the powers under section 71 of the Act to remove elected persons from the office of the members. Mr. Patel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Haribhai Galbabhai Patel and Anr. Versus Parmabhai Kanjibhai Parmar and Ors., 2000 2 GLH 19.