PATEL BHOGILAL MANORDAS Vs. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the Sarpanch of Ziila- Vasna village in Chanasma Taluka of Mehsana District against the order of suspension made against him by the District Development Officer Mehsana under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 Respondent No. 3. is a resident of Zilia village. He was given S. No. 177 of Zilia for cultivation by the Government of Gujarat on 30th November 1972. Possession thereof was given to him on 22nd June 1973. It appears that S. No. 177 was a Kharaba or a waste land. Respondent No. 3 therefore cultivated the adjoining land S. No. 210 of Zilia-Vasna. It was a Gauchar land. The petitioner therefore lodged against respondent No. 3 an information before the Police Sub-Inspector Chanasma on 21st July 1973 in respect of certain offences which respondent No. 3 was alleged to have committed. Respondent No. 3 in his turn lodged information against the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat for offences alleged to have been committed by them under secs. 447 504 506 114 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 161 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 An application was made to the District Development Officer to take action against the petitioner under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51. The District Development Officer held an inquiry into the matter and by his order dated 4th January 1975 suspended the petitioner from the sarpanchship of Zilia-Vasana Gram Panchayat on the ground that he was involved in criminal proceedings in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude. The petitioner appealed against that order to the Development Commissioner Gujarat State. The Development Commissioner after hearing the parties confirmed the order made by the District Development Officer and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) Mr. R. N. Shah who appears for the petitioner has raised before me the contention that the impugned order of suspension is not justified by the terms of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51 provides as under :