THAKORE BHALUSANGJI MANSANGJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, members of Uvarsad gram Panchayat, have challenged the order dated 02/07/2009 made by respondent No. 1. the Revisional Authority whereby respondent No. 2 herein, who was removed from the post" of Sarpanch under Resolution dated 17/02/2009 has been held by respondent No. 1 Authority to have been removed in contravention of provisions of section 56 (3) of the Gujarat Panchayats act, 1993 (the Act ).

(2.) IT is the say of the petitioners that on 22/01/2009 sixteen members out of strength of twenty two members of Uvarsad Gram panchayat moved a proposal expressing no confidence against respondent No. 2 herein and respondent No. 3, the Taluka development Officer was requested to convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly at the meeting convened on 17/02/2009 under the aegis of the Taluka development Officer and in presence of an observer appointed by the Taluka development Officer respondent No. 2 was removed from the post of Sarpanch because the Resolution was carried by a majority vote. That though respondent No. 2 had participated at the meeting and had not expressed any intention to address the house on the subject of no confidence motion yet the Revisional Authority has allowed the revision Application filed by respondent no. 2 only on a technical ground, viz. . respondent No. 2, was not permitted to speak at the meeting convened on 17/02/2009. That in-fact the Taluka Development officer and the observer had remained present before the Revisional Authority and had supported the petitioners by stating that respondent No. 2 had not expressed any willingness to address the house. Therefore the Revisional Authority has committed an error in reading provisions of Section 56 (3)of the Act in the manner done by the revisional Authority.

(3.) SECTION 56 (3) of the Act lays down the procedure to be adopted in a case where a no confidence motion is to be moved against a Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch. Sub-Section (3) of Section 56 of the Act reads as under: "56 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or, as the case may be, an Upa-Sarpanch, shall no preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him, but he shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings of such a meeting (including the right to vote. ).