NEW ODHAV GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Panchayat challenges the order dated 10th January 1995, passed by the respondent No. 1-Taluka Development Officer, by which in exercise of powers under Section 54(3) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, he held that the resignations which were tendered by the respondents, Nos. 2 to 7 as members of the Panchayat, were conditional resignations and were therefore, illegally accepted by the Sarpanch on 5-12-1994. It.was therefore ordered by the Taluka Development Officer that these six persons/continued to be the members of the petitioner- Panchayat. The term of the petitioner-Panchayat commenced from 6th April 1992, for a period of five years. Shri Jayantibhai Virchandbhai Patel was elected Sarpanch of this Panchayat. According to the petitioner, nine members of the Panchayat tendered their resignations from membership of the Panchayat in their own handwriting and signatures, in person, to the Sarpanch on 5-12-1994. The Sarpanch as a competent authority, accepted the resignations under Section 54(2) of the said Act on the same day and the letters showing acceptance of resignations were despatched to those nine members including the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 by Registered post A. D. According to the petitioner, the acceptance of resignations of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was legal and valid and they stood relieved from their office with effect from 5th December 1994. All the nine members who had submitted resignations, thereafter made an application to the Taluka Development Officer on 12-12-1994 and according to the petitioner, without any notice to the petitioner-Panchayat o.r Sarpanch, the respondent No. 1-Taluka Development Officer confirmed the order of the Sarpanch as regards resignations of three members, but set aside the same in respect of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 holding that- their resignations were conditional and declaring that they continued to remain members of the Panchayat.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1- Taluka Development Officer had passed the order without jurisdiction as the dispute relating to resignations was not referred to him by the Sarpanch. It was further contended that in the application dated 12th December 1994, which was made by the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and three others to the respondent No. 1- Taluka Development Officer relating to the resignations given, it was not even alleged that these resignations were not freely given or that they were not genuine. It was also argued that in this application there was no contention raised as is now sought to be raised by these respondents to the effect that they had tendered the resignations . on an understanding that all members and Sarpanch would resign and that there would be fresh election.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, it was contended that these resignations were conditional as held by the Taluka Development Officer and therefore, the Taluka Development Officer rightly set aside the order of the Sarpanch accepting these resignations on 5-12-1994. It was also contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the said Act against the order of the respondent No. 1 and therefore, the petition should not be entertained. It was also argued that the Sarpanch was also not authorised to file the present petition. It was then argued that the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 had given their resignations because they felt annoyed with the Sarpanch on his manner of functioning and the idea behind the resignation was that there would be a fresh election of the Panchayat.