PREMJIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SENJALIYA Vs. KHAMBHA TALUKA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned Resolution No.48 and the proceedings dated 22.04.2013, whereby a No Confidence Motion has been passed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat in the election held in the month of October, 2010. On 12.11.2010, the petitioner was elected, uncontested, to the post of President of the said Taluka Panchayat. The petitioner also happens to be the Chairman of Rabarika Pradesh Kelavani Mandal Sanchalit Gandhi Vidyalaya, and the President of Gujarat State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Khambha, Branch since the last many years. According to the petitioner, he has worked with all sincerity and diligence as the President of the Taluka Panchayat. However, some members owing allegiance to the ruling party had moved a No Confidence Motion against him as he belongs to the opposition party. The No Confidence Motion was passed on 07.03.2013. The petitioner challenged the impugned Resolution No.46 dated 07.03.2013 by filing a petition, being Special Civil Application No.2936 of 2013. The petition was partlyallowed by order dated 26.03.2013 and the No Confidence Motion dated 07.03.2013 was quashed and set aside, with liberty to the contesting respondents to move a motion of No Confidence afresh, if deemed fit. 2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner that on account of some personal engagements, he was required to go to Hyderabad. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a leave report to respondent No.1Taluka Development Officer, Khambha, on 28.03.2013, and sought leave for two months. According to the petitioner, out of sheer vengeance, a No Confidence Motion was submitted against the petitioner on 28.03.2013. Respondent No.1Taluka Development Officer, issued an agenda on 08.04.2013, calling a meeting of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat on 25.04.2013, to discuss and decide on the No Confidence Motion. The said date was later changed to 22.04.2013, pursuant to an order passed by the District Development Officer. It is further the case of the petitioner that he left for Hyderabad on 28.03.2013. The agenda dated 12.04.2013 was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post A.D. on 17.04.2013, which was received by the petitioner upon his return, after the No Confidence Motion had already been passed. Aggrieved by the passing of the No Confidence Motion against him in his absence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) MR .P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the No Confidence Motion. The meeting was held on 22.04.2013, and the Resolution and motion of No Confidence was passed against him in his absence. It is submitted that as per the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 70 of the Act, the petitioner has a mandatory right to address the members present in the meeting before the No Confidence Motion is passed against him. By passing the No Confidence Motion behind the back of the petitioner, this mandatory right has been violated and the petitioner has been gravely prejudiced. On the other hand, Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that on 28.03.2013, the petitioner proceeded on leave, therefore, the charge of the post was handed over to the VicePresident. A No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner and the Vice President by ten members of the Taluka Panchayat, in the prescribed form. That the Circle Inspector, Khambha Taluka Panchayat, reported on 30.03.2013, that the petitioner could not be served with the notice as he was not available at his residence. Thereafter, the notice was sent by Registered Post A.D., which was returned by the Postal Department with an endorsement that it could not be served due to the nonavailability of the petitioner at his residence.