RAMANBHAI SHANABHAI PATEL Vs. NADIAD TALUKA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 23rd September, 1997 at Annexure "F" to the petition, of the State Government, rejecting the Revision Application of the petitioner, which was filed under the provisions of Sec. 259 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, against the resolution of the respondent No. 1, Panchayat dated 27th August, 1997, passing the motion of no confidence against the petitioner, who was the President of the said Taluka Panchayat.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notice of motion for his removal was not given in the prescribed form "A" and since it contravened the provisions of Rule 20 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997, the resolution passing no confidence motion against the petitioner, was invalid. Under Rule 20 of the said Rules, it is provided that any member of a Panchayat who desires to move a no confidence motion against the President, shall give notice thereof to the Secretary in Form-A. A copy of the notice which is at Annexure "A" clearly shows that it was given in Form-A. All the requirements of Form-A which is prescribed under the said Rules, are complied with and the notice contains all the particulars which are required to be given as per the prescribed form. There is therefore, no substance in the contention that the notice of no confidence motion was not issued in accordance with Rule 20 of the said Rules.

(3.) It was next contended that in the said notice, reasons were not specifically stated and that it was vague. It was also contended that it was bad on the ground that the date on which it was prepared, was not mentioned. It will be noticed from the said notice of no confidence motion that the reasons for moving the no confidence motion are clearly stated. These are (i) that the petitioner was carrying on the administration arbitrarily; (ii) that there was boundless corruption in the development works, and, (iii) that the Government vehicles were being misused for private purposes. It cannot therefore, be said that the notice of no confidence motion did not contain reasons. The fact that date was not mentioned in the notice cannot invalidate the notice. This contention that the date was not mentioned in the original notice was raised for the first time and was not established. In any event, it is the date of receipt of such notice by the Panchayat which is material, and that date is clearly borne out as "14.7.1997" as stated in the impugned order. The President failed to call the meeting and therefore, the Secretary of the Panchayat made a report to the competent Authority and thereafter, the meeting came to be called on 27.8.1997, when the impugned resolution of removing the petitioner was passed.