Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1599 (GUJ)

Vaktaben Babubhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-04

RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. 1. Rule. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 20.1.2017 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Rapar, Kachchh - Respondent No. 2 herein, on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioner, learned Advocate Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for Respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Shri H.S. Munshaw for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. Though served, Respondent No. 4 is not present. 5. In view of the contentions raised and after hearing the learned Advocates, it appears that the order dated 20.1.2017 came to be passed. Though as stated in Annexure-D, the order of the High Court was also passed in Special Civil Application No. 659 of 2017 by which the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was stayed. Therefore, without any further elaboration, interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing before the order is passed afresh in accordance with law. 6. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No. 2 - Taluka Development Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law the same issue after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall decide on the basis of the material and evidence that has been brought on record with regard to the birth of the children as it is reflected from the record and the statement of Dr. Davendra Giri Goswami. The Respondent No. 2 - TDO shall proceed to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner regarding disqualification as per the provisions of the Panchayat Act on the basis of the details regarding the number of children and the birth of the respective child. The TDO shall make an endeavour to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks. 7. The present petition accordingly stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.