LALJIBHAI DHANJIBHAI UNAGAR Vs. KHAMBHA TALUKA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has, interalia, prayed that the Resolution No.49, passed on 22.04.2013, by respondent No.1Taluka Development Officer, whereby a No Confidence Motion has been passed against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

(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 elections held in the month of October, 2010, on the symbol of the Indian National Congress. Thereafter, an election was held on 12.11.2010, for the post of Vice President of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat and the petitioner was elected uncontested, to the said post. According to the petitioner, as he is affiliated to the party in opposition, other Members of the Khambha Gram Panchayat, who are affiliated to the Ruling Party, moved a motion of No Confidence against the petitioner on 07.03.2013. This No Confidence Motion was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a petition, being Special Civil Application No.2936 of 2013. This Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the No Confidence Motion, keeping it open for the contesting respondents to move a No Confidence Motion afresh, if deemed fit. It is stated in the petition that out of sheer vengeance, another motion of No Confidence was submitted against the petitioner on 28.03.2013. A meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion was held on 22.04.2013, as per the agenda of the same date. The motion of No Confidence against the petitioner was passed in the said meeting by a majority of 10 members voting against the petitioner and two members in his favour. The proceedings have been recorded in Resolution No.49 dated 22.04.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) MR .P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that it is a settled position of law, enunciated by this Court in Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2006 1 GLH 91, that the provisions of Section 56(3) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ("the Act" for short) are mandatory in nature and not merely directory. As per the said provision of law, it was incumbent upon the respondents to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, when the No Confidence Motion against him was being discussed. However, a perusal of the impugned Resolution and proceedings dated 22.04.2013, makes it very clear that no opportunity of addressing the house was afforded to the petitioner. After the commencement of the proceedings, the No Confidence Motion was read out and put to vote, straightaway.