SHANTILAL NATHALAL KHACHARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an elected councillor of Jetpur Municipality. Respondent No. 2, Collector, Rajkot, held an inquiry in respect of certain allegations made against the petitioner and to the conclusion that the petitioner had incurred disqualifications as provided under Section 11 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. It was alleged that in respect of the property held by his family members, he had unduly influenced the Tax Officer in respect of assessment of tax. It was also alleged that in certain Resolutions passed by the Municipality, the petitioner made erasures and thereby tried to help his family members. On the aforesaid allegations and other allegations which have been narrated in the order passed by the Collector, the Collector held an inquiry and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner had become disqualified to continue as councillor of the Municipality. Therefore, the Collector directed that the petitioner should cease to be a councillor of the Municipality. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order and preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 entertained the appeal but refused to grant interim relief to the effect that the operation and implementation of the order passed by the Collector be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned order dated October 3, 1987 passed by respondent No. 1. Hence this petition.

(2.) No reason is assigned by respondent No. 1 for not granting the interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner. It is undisputed position that the appeal is admitted. In the impugned order dated 3-10-1987, it is stated that the date of hearing of the appeal shall be informed to the petitioner hereinafter and that the prayer for interim relief has been rejected. The aforesaid order is required to be quashed and set aside for the simple reason that the same is a non-speaking order. Respondent No.1 ought to have assigned reasons for not granting the stay order. While passing such order, it is not necessary to pass elaborate and detailed order but some details should be' mentioned in the order which should be sufficient to indicate the reasons which weighed with the appellate authority for not granting interim relief as prayed for. In the instant case, it is clear that the petitioner is working as Municipal Councillor for a period of atleast more than one year prior to the date of passing of the order by Collector. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner continued to function as councillor of the municipality during the pendency of the inquiry before the Collector. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that respondent No. 1 has not properly exercised the discretion while refusing to grant stay order as prayed for by the petitioner. Other side is not going to be prejudiced at all if stay order is granted during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated October 3, 1987, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner latest before November 30, 1987. During the pendency of the appeal, operation and implementation of the order dated 21/25-9-1987 Annexure B to the petition passed by the Collector, Rajkot is stayed. The aforesaid direction is given on the express assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall not ask for unnecessary and avoidable adjournment and shall co-operate with the hearing of the appeal. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.