ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- “9(a) To admit and allow the petition; (b) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.04.2021 by respondent no. 1 authority and order dated 28.10.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 authority; (c) To call for the copy of the records and proceedings of appeal no. 81 of 2020 before the respondent no. 1 authority; (d) To stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by respondent no. 1 authority pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition; (e) To grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para (d) hereinabove; (f) To grant such other and further reliefs as the circumstance requires.” 2. The background of the present case is that the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Koth Gram Panchayat, Taluka : Dholka, District : Ahmedabad in January, 2017 and since then was working as a Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat in exercise of powers under Sections 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 issued show cause notice on 20.02.2020 to the petitioner by imputing certain charges, which are enumerated in the show cause notice. By levelling as many as 4 charges, the petitioner was called upon to remain present for hearing on 12.03.2020 for explaining as to why the petitioner should not be removed under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The said show cause notice came to be replied by the petitioner and after considering the explanation, the authority i.e. respondent no. 2 was pleased to pass an order of removal. By raising plea of lack of providing opportunity to the petitioner, against the said order, statutory appeal came to be filed before respondent no. 1 authority, who according to the petitioner vide order dated 01.04.2021 was pleased to confirm the order passed by respondent no. 2 without proper application of mind and without considering the legal defences raised in the appeal and in this background of fact, these two orders concurrently passed by the respondent authorities are made the subject matter of present petition. 3. 2 without proper application of mind and without considering the legal defences raised in the appeal and in this background of fact, these two orders concurrently passed by the respondent authorities are made the subject matter of present petition. 3. Based upon such representation of the petitioner, the Court was pleased to issue notice upon the respondents and later on vide order dated 08.06.2021, and after completion of pleadings in the present proceedings, with the aforesaid background, the present petition has come up for consideration before this Court. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Chitrajeet Upadhyay for Mr. Kirtan Mistry, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that right from initiation of steps against the petitioner, the authority has acted contrary to the statutory provisions. According to learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay, the allegations which are levelled in the notice are not forming the circumstance by virtue of which the powers can be exercised under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. Mere financial irregularity and dereliction of duty cannot be a subject matter of step under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and as such, the orders passed by the authorities below without appreciating this, since an initiation of steps itself is quite contrary to the statutory provisions. It has been submitted that though the charges which have been levelled in the notice have been well explained by the petitioner, the same having been examined and considered in their proper perspective and such explanation though part of the record, the findings are quite contrary. As a result of this, the orders impugned are perverse to the record. It has further been contended that it is settled position of law that whenever any elected representative is to be removed, then the said action is a serious act which cannot be initiated in such a lighter form, which is reflecting in the present case herein. According to learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay, there is no inquiry with regard to the allegations which are mentioned, the statement of relevant persons have also not been taken into consideration and further during Covid-19 period, hearing unprecedentedly has taken place and the order came to be passed. It has been submitted that any fair opportunity is given to the petitioner and as such, the very exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities below is uncalled for. It has been submitted that any fair opportunity is given to the petitioner and as such, the very exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities below is uncalled for. It has been submitted that here is a case in which, there is no charge of misappropriation, there is no charge of defalcation of money or mishandling the same and simple dereliction of duty and single allegation, even if assumed, can never be the subject matter of initiation of steps under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and as such, the authorities have acted quite contrary to the object underlined in Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. This being the position, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay has further submitted that every exercise of jurisdiction or the powers invested in the statue are to be exercised with proper application of mind and the decision to be taken with cogent reasons. A bare look at the orders would clearly indicate that this vogue principle is completely given a go-bye. As a result of this, the orders impugned are required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay has further submitted that if these allegations which are usual in nature are to be construed as circumstance, which may fall within Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, no elected representative would be safe and as such keeping reliance upon the decision delivered by this Court in the case of Kamlaben Rohitbhai Patel v. Additional Development Commissioner, reported in 2000 (2) GLR 1174 , a contention is reiterated that this act which has been alleged is neither misconduct nor designed conduct or the abuse of the power or persistent fault in performance of the duties which may attract steps under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. Hence, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law. A reference is made to the following reported decisions to substantiate his submission. In the case of Kamlaben Rohitbhai Patel v. Additional Development Commissioner, reported in 2000 (2) GLR 1174 , para 6 and 11. 5. As against this, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing on behalf of the respondent – authority has vehemently opposed the petition and has contended that the allegations which are proved against the petitioner are clearly attracting steps under Section 57 of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. 5. As against this, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing on behalf of the respondent – authority has vehemently opposed the petition and has contended that the allegations which are proved against the petitioner are clearly attracting steps under Section 57 of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that first of all before initiation of steps against the petitioner, the authority has considered two reports i.e. the one prepared by the Taluka Development Officer and another by two Member Committee which are reflecting on page 96 and 98 of the petition compilation and after considering the said reports which have been prepared on the basis of complaints received, from the persons against the petitioner, the impugned show cause notice has been issued against the petitioner. It is not that without application of mind or in any predetermined form any steps were contemplated against the petitioner. 5.1. Additionally, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that so far as fair opportunity is concerned, the impugned orders are self explanatory, need no further explanation on the issue of adequate opportunity is provided to the petitioner while passing basic order i.e. order in origin and practically eight months have been granted to the petitioners which is very much visible from page 47 of the petition compilation and as such, it cannot be said that in a hot hurried manner, a decision is taken against the petitioner. Same is the case before the appellate authority as well, enough opportunity is give to the petitioner, but than, it was found by the authorities as well that serious attempt was made by the petitioner to misdirect or mislead the authority, trying to take undue sympathy on account of pandemic situation by producing a certificate which is found not reliable. An attempt is also made to drag on the proceedings further and as such, when such kind of conduct is reflecting on record, it is hardly possible for the petitioner to raise the plea of non granting of opportunity before passing the impugned order. 5.2. Additionally, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that looking to the allegations which are mentioned in the show cause notice which are proved during the course of fact finding authorities report, this is a fit case in which, steps under Section 57 deserves to be taken and that has rightly been taken against the petitioner. 5.2. Additionally, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that looking to the allegations which are mentioned in the show cause notice which are proved during the course of fact finding authorities report, this is a fit case in which, steps under Section 57 deserves to be taken and that has rightly been taken against the petitioner. Practically though the petitioner was discharging his duty of the Sarpanch, his son was practically managing the affairs of the Panchayat, this is thoroughly uncalled for and as such, irrespective of any technicalities, this situation which is reflecting from the proceedings, can never be unnoticed. Statue has conferred specific duties upon Sarpanch by virtue of Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and as such, this defence raised by the petitioner if allowed, the very purpose of entrusting the functions to the Sarpanch would be defeated. Hence, no case is made out by the petitioner to call for any interference. In the background of aforesaid peculiar facts, the decision which is tried to be relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner and since, it is settled position of law that if the facts are distinct to the principle underlined in the decision cannot be applied as a straight-jacket formula. One additional fact would make world of difference in applying the principle. In any case, basically this petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, concurrent finding of facts which are arrived at by both the authorities cannot be disturbed or substituted in this peculiar background. Hence, no merit is visible from the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay has in-rejoinder reiterated the submissions that mere irregularities which are narrated in the show cause notice are not sufficient enough to invoke Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and eight adjournments which have been reflecting in the order are during the course of pandemic situation of Covid-19 and as such, no fault can be found of the petitioner. The authority was under an obligation to extend fair opportunity to the petitioner. That having not been done, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. No further submissions have been made. 7. The authority was under an obligation to extend fair opportunity to the petitioner. That having not been done, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. No further submissions have been made. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, following circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed before coming to the ultimate conclusion in the present proceedings. 7.1. From the perusal of the record of the present case, a show cause notice which has been attached to the petition compilation on page 41 is indicating that the petitioner was imputed for almost four charges and a bare reading of the charges are clearly related to mishandling of the financial affairs of the Panchayat. So far as first allegation is concerned, the same is related to year 2017-18 which is in respect to construction of wall of crematorium. While giving completion certificate by the petitioner on 22.02.2019, signature of Talati-cum-Mantri is missing and related to that work, the bills which have been produced subsequent to the issuance of completion certificate, the amount whereof is stated to have been withdrawn by the Sarpanch through bearer cheque and made payment by self to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs. On the basis of the statements recorded of other members of the Panchayat, it was revealed that the completion certificate has been given by the petitioner even prior to the completion of the actual work. At the relevant point of time, the work was incomplete and the payment was made in the manner as indicated above. Hence, allegation related to financial irregularity are levelled with respect to the said work. In addition to this, there are further serious allegations with respect to the payment of amount to the labourers to Jay Ambe Traders for building material and on 05.04.2018, an amount of Rs.9 lakhs came to be withdrawn by the petitioner – Sarpanch through bearer cheque no. 24735 and this withdrawal of the high amount is quite contrary to the financial guidelines issued by the Government. On the contrary, what has been mentioned is that as against original remote work of 43 mtrs., work of 110 mtrs., of compound wall is shown as excess and the same is in which scheme is also not visible. For that purpose, the statements of relevant persons from village has also been taken. 7.2. On the contrary, what has been mentioned is that as against original remote work of 43 mtrs., work of 110 mtrs., of compound wall is shown as excess and the same is in which scheme is also not visible. For that purpose, the statements of relevant persons from village has also been taken. 7.2. In addition to this, for the year 2018-19, out of the grant of member of parliament, cement concrete which was sanctioned of Rs.2 lakhs the same has not been commenced as per the map from the original area and instead, the said work has been at different place and for that purpose, for change of place there is no permission obtained and for that also, the completion certificate has been issued on 21.02.2019. With respect to another cement concrete work as there appears to be change of place, no permission for it, and it has been found that after giving completion certificate on 18.12.2018, different items have been stated to have been purchased. So in substance, serious allegations related to financial affairs of the Panchayat and the funds of it, are levelled against the petitioner and for that purpose, adequate opportunity has been given. 7.3. It appears that the District Development Officer, based upon the relevant material as well as specific report of the concerned Officer, has clearly analyzed the record and came to a conclusion that the action deserves to be concluded against the petitioner. The District Development Officer, has also found that a serious attempt is made to create undue sympathy by postulating the circumstance of suffering from corona affected, in this pandemic, but having found the medical papers, an attempt is made to produce a false certificate which also is one of the additional circumstance for which a conclusion is arrived at that the conduct of the petitioner is not befitting to be of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. So after granting appropriate opportunity of hearing, after critical analysis of the material on record, a specific conclusion is arrived at that the allegations being such, which deserves a step against the petitioner and such detailed order which has been passed by the District Development Officer on 28.10.2020 appears to be not perverse at all. 7.4. So after granting appropriate opportunity of hearing, after critical analysis of the material on record, a specific conclusion is arrived at that the allegations being such, which deserves a step against the petitioner and such detailed order which has been passed by the District Development Officer on 28.10.2020 appears to be not perverse at all. 7.4. Further, the said finding of fact arrived at by the District Development Officer has been challenged before the appellate forum in which also after granting adequate opportunity, the explanation of the petitioner has been examined in the context of the material on record and a reasoned order is passed and upon analysis, the appellate authority found that no case is made out to interfere with the order in origin. The reasons which are assigned right from para 7.2., reflecting on page 39 onward are indicating that not only the authorities have granted more than adequate opportunity to the petitioner, but have given due consideration to the material on record and after proper application of mind, has arrived at a conclusion in exercise of powers which are vested under the statute. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, extra ordinary jurisdiction does not deserve to be exercised to substitute the findings arrived at by the authorities below. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the decision which has been tried to be relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay appears to be of no assistance, this Court see no circumstance to warrant any interference. Such finding of facts which are not possible to be construed as perverse in any form, as a result of this, looking at limitation of exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction, no distinguishable case is made out to interfere with. Hence, the petition is found to be meritliess. 7.5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is mindful of the scope of exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and from the catena of decisions, some of the observations contained in the decision in the case o Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary & Ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 499 delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court deems is proper to reproduce the relevant observations contained in para 16 and 18, which read as under :- “16. In exercise of discretionary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court might interfere with administrative matters only if the decision is violative of fundamental or basic principles of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent of flagrant error. It is true that the High Court might rectify, in exercise of its power of judicial review, an error of law or even an error of fact, for sufficient reasons, if the error breaches fundamental or basic principles of justice or fair play or if the error is patent and/or flagrant, but not otherwise. However, even in cases where the High Court finds an apparent factual error which goes to the root of the decision, the appropriate course of action would be to given the opportunity to the authority concerned to rectify the error. It is only in the rarest of cases, where the factual error is so obvious that is rectifiable by the Court itself, that the Court might, to prevent delay and consequential denial and/or miscarriage of justice, rectify the error. 18. It is not for the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to embark upon a comparative assessment of the suitability of different candidates for appointment of a dealer of a retail outlet. The High Court, in our view, should not have decided the factual question of whether the land of respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was in Giriyama in view of the report of the Additional Collector, District Magistrate and Circle Officer concerned to the effect that the land of respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was in Falka block and not within Giriyama. The High Court patently erred in brushing aside the reports of the Revenue Authorities and arriving at a different finding.” 8. In view of the aforesaid premise and the position which is prevailing on record, no case is made out to call for any interference. As a result of this, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.