KAILASHBHAI CHANDUBHAI BIRARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.C.B. Upadhyaya assisted by learned advocate Mr.Kirtan H. Mistry appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.C.P. Champaneri for respondent No.4.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of Rambhas Gram Panchayat, Dang. She was elected in January, 2017. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against respondent No.4 under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short) by issuing Show--cause Notice dated 27.11.2018. Thereafter, she was removed from the post of Sarpanch vide order dated 05.03.2019. Respondent No.4, therefore, preferred an appeal under Section 57(3) of the Act before the Additional Development Commissioner. During the pendency of the said appeal, Election Commission, State of Gujarat, issued Notification under Section 15 of the Act for holding by--election for the post of Sarpanch of the aforesaid village. The petitioner filed his nomination for contesting by--election for the post of Sarpanch of the said village. In the meantime, respondent No.4 preferred Special Civil Application No.16470 of 2019 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.10.2019, disposed of the said petition with a direction to the respondent authority to decide the appeal filed by respondent No.4 as early as possible. Pursuant to the said direction, now the respondent Additional Development Commissioner, vide order dated 15.11.2019, allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 and, thereby, directed that respondent No.4 be reinstated on the post of Sarpanch of the aforesaid village. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the said order.

(3.) On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.C.P. Champaneri submits that when the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was pending before the Additional Development Commissioner, by--election was held and, therefore, the petitioner was aware about the fact that if the appeal filed by respondent No.4 is allowed, he has to vacate the post of Sarpanch. Thus, now when the Additional Development Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot be termed as "aggrieved party" and, therefore, he has no locus to file the present petition.