VANITABEN CHAGABHAI BHONYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the respondent - Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat, under Section 253 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), dissolving the Kuntasi Gram Panchayat.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioners belonged to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. They along with others were elected as the members of the village Kuntasi Gram Panchayat. The petitioner No. 1 was elected as the Sarpanch of the said village. On 06.03.2017 meeting was held to clear the Budget of the Panchayat, and all the 9 members of the Panchayat were present. However, the resolution to sanction the budget could not be passed and it was rejected. It is alleged by the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 6 to 10, who were belonging to upper caste, had targeted the petitioners, and therefore the petitioners had made representation to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent No. 4 - Taluka Development Officer thereafter vide letter dated 18.03.2017 gave another opportunity to pass the budget in the interest of the village, and therefore, the meeting was scheduled to be held on 27.03.2017. Again the respondent No. 6 to 10 voted against the resolution, and therefore, the budget could not be passed on that day also. Under the circumstances, the District Development Officer, Morbi sent a communication to the respondent No. 4 indicating that the said Panchayat will not be able to incur expenditure. The petitioner No. 1 along with the Talati-cum-Mantri also approached the respondent No. 4 seeking permission to incur necessary expenditure, however, their request remained unattended. The said panchayat thereafter received a show-cause notice on 13.09.2017 from the respondent No. 2, whereby the Panchayat was called upon to show cause as to why the body of the said panchayat should not be dissolved under Section 253 of the said Act, for the violation of the Section 116 of the said Act (Annexure 'I'). The meeting of the Panchayat, therefore was again called upon on 22.09.2017 to pass the budget, however, on that day also, the respondent No 6 to 10 having voted against passing of the budget, the same could not be passed. It appears that thereafter the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 dissolving the Panchayat under Section 253 for the violation of Section 116 of the said Act. Hence, the petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned advocate Ms. Nili Shah for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being the members belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, were being targeted by the respondent No. 6 to 10, who belonged to the upper caste, and they never cooperated the petitioners in passing the budget. According to her, the respondent No. 2 ought to have appreciated the said fact before dissolving the Panchayat. She urged that the representation made by the petitioners were also not being attended to by the respondent authorities, and that discriminatory treatment on the basis of the caste, was being meted out by the respondents.