Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 575 (GUJ)

GULAMBHAI AMIBHAI PARASARA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2023-04-06

SANGEETA K.VISHEN

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no. 1, Mr.Khush K. Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and Ms.Nidhika Zaveri, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no. 6. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5-Administrator of Chandrapur Gram Panchayat, nominating the respondent no. 6 as the nominated Director of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Vankaner under the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1963”). The petitioner has also prayed for direction, holding that the persons nominated under Sections 11(1)(iv) and 11(1)(v) of the Act of 1963, do not have the right to vote at the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the APMC in view of the specific provisions made under Section 17 read with Rule 31 wherein, the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, only elected members have right to contest. 4. Mr.Bharat Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner, at the out set, states that he does not press prayer 37(b) at this stage and urges for deletion of the said prayer. Acceding to the request, prayer 37(b), upon statement being made, is directed to be deleted. 5. Mr.Rao, learned advocate submitted that the captioned writ petition was necessitated, challenging the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023 whereby, the administrator i.e. respondent no. 5 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 has nominated the respondent no. 6, who happens to be the son of Shri Jalalbhai Alibhai Ahmadbhai Sherasiya, an elected member of APMC, Vankaner from Agriculturists’ constituency. It is submitted that the nomination of the respondent no. 6 is against the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in the case of Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia vs. State of Gujarat, 2006 (3) GLR 2461 . It is submitted that the nomination of the respondent no. 6 is against the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in the case of Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia vs. State of Gujarat, 2006 (3) GLR 2461 . It is submitted that while considering the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963, it has been held and observed that the administrator, while nominating a person, as a member of the market committee, is discharging a statutory function. The selection of a person to be so nominated had to be on the basis of some reasons and the exercise had to be informed by logic. Any arbitrary exercise of selection would not fulfill such test. It is therefore, submitted that the appointment of the respondent no. 6 was in total disregard of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia (supra). 6. It is submitted that the District Registrar, Morbi had called upon the gram panchayat to nominate its representative under the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 with a request to send the certified copy of agenda, resolution, consent of candidates along with the signature etc. In response thereto, the so-called resolution no. 23 has been passed on 13.02.2023, taking a decision to nominate the respondent no. 6 as the member of the APMC. It is submitted that the administrator has not examined the credentials of respondent no. 6 nor has come to the conclusion that for a particular reason, that the respondent no. 6 would be a suitable person for being nominated as a representative of the local authority. It is submitted that the administrator has not only failed in discharging his duties but, has completely abdicated his powers and allowed himself to be guided by the directives of the persons for nominating a particular person to the market committee. 7. It is submitted that after the petition was filed that, certain documents have been concocted, so as to create a show that the procedure has been followed of inviting the applications etc. It is submitted that the respondent no. 5 has filed an affidavit, together with the documents, namely, the so-called public notice dated 08.02.2023, rojkam drawn so also, the publication of the list of the names. It is submitted that the respondent no. 5 has filed an affidavit, together with the documents, namely, the so-called public notice dated 08.02.2023, rojkam drawn so also, the publication of the list of the names. It is submitted that bare perusal of the documents produced along with the affidavit suggests that they are neither on the letter head of the panchayat nor contain any other details. It is submitted that so far as the applications are concerned, the details of the applications are to be recorded in the register maintained by the panchayat; however, no details have been placed on record. It is therefore, submitted that the documents produced, together with the affidavit of the respondent no. 5, do not inspire confidence and have been created after filing of the petition to portray that the procedure has been followed by the administrator while nominating the respondent no. 6. 8. It is submitted that the mode and manner in which, the said documents are prepared, they do not qualify the test of the business being conducted by the State Government. It is submitted that it is very clear that no government correspondence can be made on a plain paper and the transaction of the business of the government is always on the letter heads bearing inward and outward numbers. It is submitted that by not maintaining the documents and only with a view to coming out of the allegation of an irregularity committed in the procedure of appointing the respondent no. 6, that the documents have been placed on record. Such documents may not be accepted. 9. It is submitted that such grievance was raised and this Court has passed an order dated 15.03.2023, forming a prima facie opinion and an inquiry was directed to be conducted by a responsible officer from the office of the respondent no. 2, as regards the genuineness of the documents. It is submitted that this Court has also required the concerned officer to inquire into the matter and submit a report. Apropos the order dated 15.03.2023, an inquiry was conducted and the report has been filed, together with the affidavit. It is submitted that as many as 5 issues were formulated and out of 5 issues, so far as the issue numbers 2, 4 and 5 are concerned, they have been stated to be not proved. Apropos the order dated 15.03.2023, an inquiry was conducted and the report has been filed, together with the affidavit. It is submitted that as many as 5 issues were formulated and out of 5 issues, so far as the issue numbers 2, 4 and 5 are concerned, they have been stated to be not proved. It is submitted that therefore, from the report, it is more than clear that the procedure, which was required to be observed by the administrator, has not been observed and gross irregularities have been committed in nominating the respondent no. 6. It is submitted that the administrator has acted in disregard of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia (supra). It is therefore, urged that the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader has made submissions along the lines of the affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 15.03.2023. It is submitted that the inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Agriculture Marketing & Rural Finance. The issues formulated by this Court were inquired into depth and upon inquiry, it has been found that the procedure has not been properly followed. It is submitted that issue no. 2, as to whether, the administrator has considered the names of the other persons while finalizing the name of respondent no. 6, it has been observed that though, the eligibility has been considered, it is not clear as to whether the consent of other six applicants, or for that matter, their eligibility, is considered. It has also been observed that there is no inward and outward register maintained and it is not clear from the notice dated 08.02.2023 as to whether, the applications of the 7 applicants have been received or not. It is therefore, submitted that there are clear-cut findings that inward and outward register is not maintained and the procedure lacks, not only clarity but, is tainted with irregularity. It is submitted that similarly, issue no. 4 was also inquired as regards the documents (page 90), namely, rojkam of the publication of notice, list of the names and consent of the applicants. It has been opined on the lines of issue no. 2. So far as issue no. It is submitted that similarly, issue no. 4 was also inquired as regards the documents (page 90), namely, rojkam of the publication of notice, list of the names and consent of the applicants. It has been opined on the lines of issue no. 2. So far as issue no. 5 is concerned, it has been observed that it is not clear as to whether, the applications have been received of the 7 applicants. It is submitted that from the record, discernibly, the procedure, which otherwise was required to be followed, does not appear to have been followed by the administrator. Therefore, it is urged that appropriate orders be passed. 11. Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Khush K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent no. 5 has tried to justify the action of the administrator. Mr.Patel, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no provision, requiring the panchayat, or for that matter, the administrator to maintain the inward or outward register. It is submitted that in the present case, no register has been maintained either by the panchayat or by the administrator. After arguing for sometime, it is submitted that the respondent no. 5 - administrator is personally present before this Court and states that resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023 may be quashed and set aside, as the said resolution contains discrepancies. 12. Ms.Nidhika P. Zaveri, learned advocate for respondent no. 6 has made submissions along the lines of the submissions made by Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5. It is submitted that so far as the procedure is concerned, the respondent no. 6 is nowhere at the fault. No other and further submissions have been made. 13. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the documents available on record. 14. The petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5, nominating respondent no. 6, as per the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963. The respondent no. 5 had filed the affidavit opposing the entertainment of the writ petition and in support of passing of the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023, has placed on record the notice dated 08.02.2023, the rojkam drawn, affixing the notice and the list of the persons from whom, the applications were received. Moreover, the respondent no. The respondent no. 5 had filed the affidavit opposing the entertainment of the writ petition and in support of passing of the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023, has placed on record the notice dated 08.02.2023, the rojkam drawn, affixing the notice and the list of the persons from whom, the applications were received. Moreover, the respondent no. 5 has also stated about submission of the application of the respondent no. 6 together with the other documents. It has also been stated that respondent no. 5 has personally received the letter from the APMC, Vankaner certifying that the respondent no. 6 is not holding any license and after considering the eligibility, it has been stated that the resolution is passed by the village panchayat, nominating respondent no. 6. 15. In response to the said reply, the petitioner has filed his rejoinder strongly opposing the contents of the documents, namely, the notice; the panchnama drawn affixing the notice and the list of the names of the applicants from whom, the applications were received. It has been vehemently contended that none of the documents produced together with the affidavit of the respondent no. 5, were existing when the notice was issued by this Court and the said documents are nothing but, concocted documents only with a view to covering up the procedure which, otherwise, has not been followed. According to the petitioner, the documents are got up as none of the documents, are on the letter heads of the gram panchayat bearing any inward or outward numbers. 16. This Court, accepting the contention of the petitioner, was of the prima facie opinion that the consideration as required in the judgment in the case of Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia vs. State of Gujarat (supra) is missing. This Court was also of the opinion that the documents (pages 89, 90, 91, 96 and 97) neither appear to have been issued nor written under the letter head of the Chandrapur Gram Panchayat. Whereas, the certificate dated 02.03.2023, certifying the bifurcation of the Chandrapur village panchayat, is on the letter head of the gram panchayat, signed by the administrator and the Talati-cum-Mantri. Similarly, page 44 is also a letter issued under the letter head of the office of the Chandrapur Gram Panchayat. This Court also took note of the fact that the resolution no. Similarly, page 44 is also a letter issued under the letter head of the office of the Chandrapur Gram Panchayat. This Court also took note of the fact that the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023 is not on the letter head of the gram panchayat but, is signed by the Talati-cum-Mantri. This Court therefore, passed an order dated 15.03.2023 and directed an inquiry by the responsible officer from the respondent no. 2 i.e. Director, Agriculture Marketing & Rural Finance, State of Gujarat, to verify the following aspects: “1. The officer shall collect the file from the administrator and upon collection of such file, he shall verify whether the same contains the documents as mentioned hereinabove. 2. The officer shall also verify whether the administrator has considered the names of other persons while finalizing the name of the respondent no. 6. 3. Whether the original order contains or bears the signature of the administrator and the Talati-cum-Mantri. 4. The officer shall also verify whether the public notice at page no. 89, the documents at page nos.90, 91, 96 and 97 are genuine in the sense that the same could have been issued without the letterhead of the Gram Panchayat or not and if the same are issued, any entry or register is being made or not. 5. The officer is directed to collect the necessary information in the manner and method, in which the public notice has been issued at page no. 89, the Rojkam at page no. 90 and page no. 91 as well as the other documents as mentioned hereinabove.” 17. A detailed report was directed to be filed on or before 21.03.2023. Inquiry has been conducted and respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit, annexing the report and giving its findings on the issues, as indicated in the order dated 15.03.2023. Issue no. 1 relates to the documents page 89 - public notice; page 90 - the panchnama drawn for affixing the public notice; page 91 - the public notice accepting the application of seven applicants; page 96 - the Rojkam and page 97 forming part of the file. So far as the issue no. Issue no. 1 relates to the documents page 89 - public notice; page 90 - the panchnama drawn for affixing the public notice; page 91 - the public notice accepting the application of seven applicants; page 96 - the Rojkam and page 97 forming part of the file. So far as the issue no. 2 is concerned, it has been opined that the administrator has considered the eligibility and has taken the consent of six applicants; however, there is nothing available on the record to suggest that the eligibility of the other six applicants have been considered or not. The inquiry also suggests that the inward and outward registers are not being maintained and therefore, in absence of maintenance of the registers, it is not clear as to whether, only seven applications were received pursuant to the notice dated 08.02.2023. Issue no. 4 is whether, the public notice and other documents are genuine in the sense that the same could have been issued without the letter head of the Gram Panchayat or not and if the same are issued, any entry or register is being made or not? To which, it has been opined that there are no entries in the office register and no register is maintained. The opinion reiterates, as has been stated for issue no. 2. Issue no. 5 is also on the same lines i.e. non-maintenance of the inward and outward register and lack of clarity as to whether, any applications were received or not. 18. The matter was heard and after hearing, this Court has passed an order dated 03.04.2023 whereby, respondent no. 5 was directed to remain personally present with the original file, containing the decision of nominating the respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 5 was also required to provide the instructions as to whether, there is any practice, at all, followed by the panchayat for maintaining the register, except the register in the case of construction applications. The register containing the resolution of the panchyat, transacting the business, was also directed to be kept ready for perusal of this Court. The respondent no. 5 has made available the original file, containing the decision nominating the respondent no. 6. 19. At this stage, some facts would be relevant. The register containing the resolution of the panchyat, transacting the business, was also directed to be kept ready for perusal of this Court. The respondent no. 5 has made available the original file, containing the decision nominating the respondent no. 6. 19. At this stage, some facts would be relevant. On 08.02.2023, a communication was issued by the Election Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Vankaner & District Registrar which was delivered personally and on the basis whereof, the public notice has been prepared and pasted on the notice board, which was on a simple paper. Panchnama was drawn of the publication of the notice, and states that the person interested and eligible may submit the applications within a period of five days. As it appears, apropos the said notice, seven interested parties have submitted their applications. The list of the names, who have submitted the applications, was prepared by the Talati-cum-Mantri and the administrator on 13.02.2023. This Court confronted Mr.Patel, learned Senior Counsel with the query that how the list was prepared, and in response whereof and after taking instructions from respondent no. 5, who is personally present in the Court, it has been reported that the list has been jointly prepared by the Talaticum- Mantri and the administrator. Twice the statement has been confirmed. Such statement made, in the opinion of this Court, is not in consonance with record, for, a bare perusal of the said list suggest that it is not the list but, contains the signatures of all the seven applicants, who have filed the applications for nomination. 20. Moreover, It is quite unusual that upon receipt of the communication dated 08.02.2023, from the office of the Registrar, immediately, a handwritten notice is pasted on the notice board inviting the applications and on that very day, the rojkam was prepared of publication of the notice. The applications are stated to have been received. Though, the file contains the applications of the seven interested parties, it is not clear as to when, the applications were received and who has received the applications for, there are no endorsement either of the Talati-cum-Mantri or the administrator, receiving the applications. Therefore, such mode adopted does not inspire any confidence and is tainted with the element of arbitrariness. Though, the file contains the applications of the seven interested parties, it is not clear as to when, the applications were received and who has received the applications for, there are no endorsement either of the Talati-cum-Mantri or the administrator, receiving the applications. Therefore, such mode adopted does not inspire any confidence and is tainted with the element of arbitrariness. The file also contains various other documents, namely, the certificate dated 02.03.2023; the communication dated 13.02.2023 addressed by the administrator to the Election Officer sending the nomination. Though, the said documents are very much on the letter head of the gram panchayat, other documents, namely, the draft of the notice; the so called list prepared of the names of the applicants; the panchnama; are on a simple paper and not on the letter head. 21. This Court, in its order dated 15.03.2023, was of the opinion that the documents at page nos.89, 90, 91, 96 and 97 are not on the letter head but, the other communications and certificate issued by the office of the Chandrapur Gram Panchayat are under the letter heads of the gram panchayat. Therefore, it raises question as to why, these documents, which are in furtherance of the procedure for appointing the nominee, are not on the letter heads. It is surprising and unusual that the panchayat and, more particularly, the respondent no. 6, is transacting the business of the panchayat in such a casual manner. Similarly, there is a consent letter issued by the villagers of the Chandrapur Gram Panchayat; however, the said communication, though is dated 13.02.2023, except the signatures, does not contain as to when, the same was received by the respondent no. 5. It is well known that there is a practice of maintaining the inward and outward register and, if not, then at least, the acknowledgment receipt of the communication should be there but, the same is also missing. 22. Adverting to the aspect of passing of the resolution, it is interesting to note that the resolution no. 23 is recorded in the register, in vernacular. Initial portion, records the factum of receipt of the letter dated 08.02.2023 of the District Registrar and the contents thereof. The second portion makes a reference of the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 and the powers of the administrator to nominate the nominee. Initial portion, records the factum of receipt of the letter dated 08.02.2023 of the District Registrar and the contents thereof. The second portion makes a reference of the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 and the powers of the administrator to nominate the nominee. Further, passing of the resolution, resolving to nominate the respondent no. 6 of village Chandrapur with identification number and the Aadhar Card number. Except this, nothing has been recorded in the resolution as to how many applications were received, when the applications were received and when all the applicants or the interested parties have given their consent for nominating the respondent no. 6. The resolution exclusively states about nominating the respondent no. 6 with no further details; however, when the affidavit is filed, various documents, namely, pasting of the notice on the notice board; the applications received etc. have been indicated. Such procedure, to say the least is nothing but, an eye-wash. Also, more particularly, there is no discussion as to how, the respondent no. 6 is eligible and possesses all the requisite qualifications for being appointed or nominated as per the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963. 23. At this stage, the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia (supra), is worth referring to. Considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1963, it has been held and observed that ordinarily, when the local authority is constituted within whose jurisdiction the principal market yard is situated, one member is to be nominated under clause (iv) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the said Act from amongst its councillors or as the case may be, members who do not hold any general licence. When an elected local authority is therefore in power, the local authority has to select one out of its councillors to be nominated as member of the market committee. This automatically ensures that the person to be nominated represents the wish of the entire constituency. When an elected local authority is therefore in power, the local authority has to select one out of its councillors to be nominated as member of the market committee. This automatically ensures that the person to be nominated represents the wish of the entire constituency. It has been held that it is only in a case where the councillors or members have vacated the office and administrator is appointed to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the local authority that the administrator gets the powers to make nomination from amongst persons qualified to be councillors or members of the local authority and not holding a general licence. Relevant extracts of paragraph 11 read thus: “…..Insofar as the qualification is concerned, therefore the only requirement is that the person sought to be nominated by the administrator should be qualified to be a councillor or a member of the local authority and that he should not be holding a general licence. This, however, does not mean that the administrator can take an arbitrary decision and nominate any person without there being his satisfaction about the credentials of such a person to be nominated. Though I am unable to agree with the suggestion of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the administrator should have called for interested persons to apply for being considered for nomination since this is not a public employment and the nomination to be made by the administrator cannot be confused with the appointment to a public post, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned advocates for the respondents that the administrator had an absolute free choice to select any person for nomination as long as he fulfills the qualification. The purpose of nomination appears to be to represent the local authority. Ordinarily when the local authority is being managed by a duly constituted elected body, the local authority would nominate a person from one amongst the councillors. This as noted above, will automatically take care of the democratic process and will ensure that the person nominated represents the wish of the entire constituency. It is only in a case where for some reason the elected body is not in power and that administrator is appointed to discharge functions and duties of the local authority that the administrator gets power to make a nomination. It is only in a case where for some reason the elected body is not in power and that administrator is appointed to discharge functions and duties of the local authority that the administrator gets power to make a nomination. Considered from this angle, it would be manifest that the administrator owes a duty to take a considered decision as to the person who is to be nominated as member of the market committee. Such a decision cannot be arbitrary and without any reasons. Any decision of the administrator which is not visited by reason would be an arbitrary decision and would render such a decision illegal.” 24. Paragraph 17 of the judgment would be apt as well, to examine the legality and validity of the decision of the administrator, which reads thus: “17. I am conscious of the fact that when the Legislature has provided for nomination of a member, the same gives certain degree of latitude to the authority selecting the person for such nomination. Considering the provisions of the said Act and in particular, the provisions contained in section 11(1)(iv) of the said Act, however, such a nomination cannot be confused with the nomination of the Chairman of Boards or a public body who holds his office entirely at the pleasure of the Governor. In the present case, the Administrator while nominating a person as member of the market committee is discharging a statutory function. The selection of a person to be so nominated had to be on the basis of some reasons and the exercise had to be informed by logic. Any arbitrary exercise of selection would not fulfill such test. The Administrator has not examined the credentials of respondent No. 5 nor has the Administrator even on file come to the conclusion that for certain reasons respondent No. 5 would be a suitable person for being nominated as a representative of the local authority. As noted earlier, ordinarily, nomination under section 11(1)(iv) of the said Act is to be made by the elected body of the Municipality from amongst its councillors. The Legislature has thus provided that the nomination should be made by the elected body from amongst elected members. This in turn would ensure that a person who is found competent by the elected body to represent the constituency gets nominated. The Legislature has thus provided that the nomination should be made by the elected body from amongst elected members. This in turn would ensure that a person who is found competent by the elected body to represent the constituency gets nominated. It is only in a case where the Municiality is dissolved and an administrator is appointed that the question of nominating a person by the Administrator to represent the constituency crops up. The Administrator, therefore, cannot have unguided and unchannelized powers to arbitrarily pick up any person for nomination. The credentials of the person, his contribution in the field and usefulness as a representative of the constituency to the market committee are some of the relevant considerations which the Administrator is required to look into before taking a decision to nominate a certain person as the member of the committee. In the present case, not only has the Administrator failed in discharge of the said duties, but he has fully and completely abdicated his powers and allowed himself to be guided by the directives of respondent No. 2 for nominating a particular person to the Market committee. Even within the wide degree of discretion, which the Administrator would enjoy while exercising the powers under section 11(1)(iv) of the said Act, such a decision cannot be upheld.” 25. This Court did not agree with the suggestion of the petitioner therein that the administrator should have called for the interested persons to apply for being considered for nomination, as it is not a public employment and the nomination is to be made by the administrator cannot be confused with the appointment to a public post. 26. In the present case, the process of calling the applications, perhaps is only with a view to portraying before this Court that while nominating the respondent no. 6, the procedure has been followed without realizing that calling for the application, is not the requirement. The administrator indeed owes a duty to examine the credentials and take a considered decision nominating the person as the member of the Market Committee. Perceptibly, the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023, suggests that no such satisfaction has been arrived at by the administrator. There is not a whisper as to how, the eligibility or the credentials of the respondent no. 6 were examined; except nominating the respondent no. 6 as the member of the Market Committee. 27. Perceptibly, the resolution no. 23 dated 13.02.2023, suggests that no such satisfaction has been arrived at by the administrator. There is not a whisper as to how, the eligibility or the credentials of the respondent no. 6 were examined; except nominating the respondent no. 6 as the member of the Market Committee. 27. Therefore, the manner in which, the whole exercise has been undertaken by the administrator, exhibits that the administrator has not only acted in a high-handed manner but, has abdicated his powers by not exercising the same in tune with the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia (supra). The whole exercise undertaken by the administrator is illegal and tainted with arbitrariness. Therefore, the said resolution, nominating the responding no. 6, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 28. Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel has urged that respondent no. 5 tenders his apology and assures this Court that this will not happen in future. Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel has tendered the affidavit of the respondent no. 5. The same is directed to be taken on record. The respondent no. 5 shall, in future, adhere to the contents of the affidavit dated 06.04.2023. 29. With this, the captioned writ petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. 30. The original file, containing all the documents so also, the register, meeting book of the panchayat of the month of September, 2022 as well as the original file from the office of the respondent no. 2, are hereby directed to be returned to learned advocate Mr.Khush K. Patel and Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader respectively.