ATAJI CHHANAJI THAKORE Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MEHSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are elected members of Saij Gram Panchayat have challenged the validity of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as Administrator in place of the suspended Sarpanch of the Panchayat, though the tenure of the Panchayat of five years from its first meeting held on 17th March, 1992 is subsisting.

(2.) The Saij Gram Panchayat which was constituted on 23rd February, 1992 as per the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 held its first meeting on 17th March, 1992 and its tenure was for a period of five years under the law. One Raijiji Mangaji Thakore was elected as the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. In the first meeting of the Panchayat. Amaji Shakarji Thakore came to be elected as Upa- Sarpanch. The petitioners were elected as members in the general election. According to the petitioners, the Sarpanch was involved in an offence of murder punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and by an order dated 28th July, 1993, he was suspended by the competent authority as Sarpanch under the provisions of Sec. 51(1) of the said Act. On his suspension, the functions were to be discharged by the Upa-Sarpanch Amaji Shankarji Thakore. Thereafter, since the Upa-Sarpanch Amaji Shankarji Thakore also came to be involved in an offence involving moral turpitude, the competent authority by an order dated 7th April, 1994 suspended the Upa-Sarpanch under Sec. 51(1) of the said Act. Thereupon, by order dated 11th April, 1994 issued by the Taluka Development Officer of the Taluka Panchayat, Kalol, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as an Administrator under the instructions purportedly given under Sec. 53(3) of the said Act by the District Development Officer. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 who was appointed as Administrator, took over charge as Sarpanch of the Panchayat on 18th April, 1994. The petitioners have prayed for a Writ of quo-warranto questioning the authority of the respondent No. 3 to function as a Sarpanch.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Sec. 53(3) of the said Act did not authorise appointment of an Administrator in the event of suspension of Sarpanch and/or Upa-Sarpanch. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that when Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch both get suspended, vacancies can be said to have arisen, warranting appointment of the Administrator. Reliance was placed in support of this submission on the provisions of Sec. 53(3) of the said Act, under which when offices of both the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch become vacant simultaneously, the Taluka Development Officer in the case of a Gram Panchayat may authorise an officer, pending the election of the Sarpanch, to exercise all the powers and perform all the functions and duties of Sarpanch.