JYOTIBA S ZALA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters patent, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the District development Officer, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers under Sec. 57 (1) of the gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ("the Act") whereby the appellant was removed from the office of Sarpanch of village Dholera, which order was confirmed by the additional Development Commissioner by his order dated 25th September, 2007.

(2.) THE appellant was elected to the office of Sarpanch of Dholera Gram panchayat on 12th December, 2007 (sic.) and took charge on 17th January, 2007. Within a short period of about five months, the District Development officer issued a show-cause notice dated 20th June, 2007 against the appellant calling upon her to show-cause as to why she should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch under Sec. 57 (1) of the Act. The charges levelled against the appellant were (i) a meeting of Dholera Gram Panchayat was convened on 28-2-2007, in which meeting no member was present and despite the fact that there was no quorum as required under the Panchayats Procedure Rules, vide resolution No. 7 it had been resolved to demolish circles; (ii) in the meeting held on 25-1-2007 only two members were present and there was no quorum despite which resolution Nos. 2 to 4 were passed; (iii) in the meeting convened on 28-3-2007, no member was present, however, despite there being no quorum the minutes were recorded; (iv) in the meeting convened on 25-4-2007, no member was present, however, despite there being no quorum the minutes were recorded, and (v) two circles of the Dholera Gram Panchayat were constructed by the Government with the participation of the public. By demolishing the said circles, loss has been caused to public property. On the aforesaid charges, it was alleged that the appellant is guilty of abuse of powers and lack of devotion towards her duties.

(3.) IN response to the said show-cause notice, the appellant submitted a reply dated 29th June, 2007 denying the allegations levelled against her. According to the appellant, it is the duty of the Talati-cum-Mantri to decide as to whether there is a quorum. When there is no quorum, under the provisions of the panchayats Act minutes of a non-quorum meeting are not to be recorded, howeve the Talati-cum-Mantri has recorded the same. Thus, in respect of such action it is the Talati-cum-Mantri who is responsible. As regards Resolution 7, at application had been received from shopkeepers to demolish the circles and tha as a part of her duties she had presented the same at the meeting, whereupor the Talati-cum-Mantri had written the resolution. According to the appellant, it was the duty of the Talati-cum-Mantri to write the resolution and if the resolution was illegal the Talati-cum-Mantri had not given any guidance in that regard. Resolutions of the Gram Panchayat are to be implemented by the Talati-cum-Mantri, who had not suggested to her as to what course of action is required to be adopted to remove the circles, which were in the nature of hindrances. No authority had been authorised to implement the said resolution, however, it appears that the implementing authority has acted in accordance with his understanding. As regards Resolution Nos. 2 to 4, it was submitted that despite the meeting being non-quorum the Talati-cum-Mantri has written the resolutions as well as the minutes to malign the elected office-bearers. In respect of the other allegations it is submitted that the minutes were recorded by the Talati-cum-Mantri and that when the under the rules minutes of a non-quorum meetings were not to be recorded, the Talati-cum-Mantri ought not to have recorded the same and should have given proper guidance to the elected body. According to the appellant, she was not conversant with the provisions of the Gujarat panchayats Act and the Rules thereunder and that the entire proceedings were done by the Talati-cum-Mantri who was conversant with the provisions.