MULCHANDBHAI JETHABHAI PARMAR Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 1. 5. 2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 District Development Officer, Patan (Annexrue A to the petition) by which the respondent No. 1 has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent No. 3 herein by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Harij dated 3. 3. 2009 by which respondent No. 3 was disqualified under Section 30 (1) (m) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was elected member of the Sodhav-Paloli Group Gram Panchayat elected in general election held in April 2007. That he was elected as a member of the Panchayat from ward No. 5. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that after he was elected as member of group gram panchayat, the respondent No. 3 became the father of the fourth child and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 incurred disqualification under Section 30 (1) (m)of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and, therefore, petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer, Harij pointing out the violation of Section 30 (1) (m) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, by respondent No. 3. A show cause notice was issued upon the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not be disqualified as a member of the panchayat as he has become the father of the fourth child after he was elected as a member of the panchayat. That a birth certificate of the Fourth child was also produced. That respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer, Harij by an order dated 3. 3. 2009 passed an order disqualifying the respondent No. 3 as a member of the Gram Panchayat for breach of Section 30 (1) (m) of the Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Harij dated 3. 3. 2009, respondent No. 3 preferred appeal before the respondent No. 1 District Development Officer, Patan. That subsequently the respondent No. 4 was joined as party appellant in the said appeal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that though the respondent No. 3 became the father of the fourth child on 5. 8. 2008, however within few days child expired, therefore, at that time when the show cause notice was issued petitioner was not the father of the fourth child and / therefore, number of children is not increased and therefore, he cannot be disqualified. The District Development Officer, Patan accepted the same and allowed appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by impugned order and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer dated 3. 3. 2009, by which the respondent No. 3 has disqualified. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the District Development Officer, Patan, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is reported that respondent No. 3 has refused to accept the notice of this Court.