RAHULKUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. ASHOKKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is some what interesting - although the facts are not unique or unusual. In later part of 2010, general elections of Taluka Panchayat in the District of Anand was scheduled. The Collector, Anand had sent a letter to the petitioner for requisitioning his vehicle for election purpose. The petitioner herein is the Managing Director of Amul Dairy. The Collector, had passed an order on 11.10.2012 for requisitioning the vehicle of the - Chairman, Amul Dairy, Anand. The said order was forwarded to the present petitioner. The order directs the petitioner to produce the vehicle with driver on the same day i.e. on 11.10.2010 at 5:00 p.m. It also states that if the vehicle is not in working condition, the same shall be produced after getting it repaired. The petitioner replied to the Collector on the same day expressing inability to submit the vehicle as the vehicle is provided to the Chairman for attending the office. On 14.10.2010, the Collector had addressed a letter wherein the petitioner's attention was drawn to consequence of noncompliance of requisition namely it would attract Section 50 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

(3.) Learned senior advocate Shri K.S. Nanavati for the petitioner after briefly referring to the facts of the case has mainly raised three points;