Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 79 (GUJ)

VANABHAI RAMABHAI BHARWAD v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2023-01-09

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2023
ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “(B) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of same and be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 authorities to consider and decide the complaints of the petitioners and take action against the erring post holder in accordance with provisions contained u/s. 32 and 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, within stipulated time period. (C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of same and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by respondent no. 2, at Annexure-G to the present petition. (D) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of same and be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to denovo decide the complaints of the petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within stipulated time frame.” 2. The prayer (C) made by the petitioners is in respect of quashing and setting aside the order dated 3.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 2, which is produced at page 128 of the petition. 3. Heard Mr. C.P. Champaneri, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Aayan Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents and learned advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for Ahmedabad District Panchayat. 4. The petitioner No. 1 is the former Deputy Sarpanch of village Chiyada and petitioner No. 2 is the Deputy Sarpanch of the said village and they have some grievance against the present Sarpanch-Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad, who has not been joined as respondent in this petition. 4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they have manifold grievances against the present Sarpanch-Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad and hence they preferred an application dated 3.2.2022 to the Deputy District Development Officer Panchayat Vibhag, Ahmedabad District Panchayat, Ahmedabad and made complaint in respect of nine different issues and by way of the aforesaid application the petitioners prayed for removal of the Sarpanch- Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad. 4.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings against Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad and hearing of the same took place. 4.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings against Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad and hearing of the same took place. After the aforesaid hearing was concluded, the petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No. 19587 of 2022 praying for directions against respondent authorities of that petition and to take action against the erring post holders in accordance with the provisions of Sections 32 and 57 of the Act, 1993 within the stipulated time. The aforesaid petition being Special Civil Application No. 19587 of 2022 came to be disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.10.2022, which reads as under: “1. This petition is filed for the following reliefs: “8(A) xxx (B) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of same and be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 authorities to consider and decide the complaints of the petitioners and take action against the erring post holder in accordance with provisions contained u/s. 32 and 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 within stipulated time period. (C) xxx” 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Champaneri for the petitioner. Considering the limited grievance in the petition that though the petitioner has made several complaints, his complaints are not appropriately dealt with by the authority, it will be appropriate to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein to consider the communication dated 27.7.2022 made by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law and on perusing the record available with the authority and without being influenced by this order. 3. With the above direction, this petition is disposed off. Direct service is permitted.” 5. According to Mr. Champaneri, learned advocate for the petitioner, the aforesaid order dated 4.10.2022 was received by him on his email on 11.10.2022. However, in the meantime, the proceedings initiated upon the application made by the petitioners was decided by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 3.10.2022 and the authority has by passing a detailed order in respect of all nine issues, held that on examination of all the allegations levelled against the Sarpanch-Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad, no case is made out to remove him as Sarpanch of Chiyada Gram Panchayat. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 3.10.2022 has taken into consideration all the nine allegations separately and has examined each of the allegations independently and after examining the same held that no procedure for removal of Sarpanch-Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad, as prayed by the petitioners, is required to be initiated. 5.1 Though the aforesaid order is passed on 3.10.2022, which is one day before, a co-ordinate Bench disposed of Special Civil Application No. 19587 of 2022 by issuing direction to the respondents to consider the communication dated 27.7.2022 made by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. It is further the case of the petitioners that order dated 3.10.2022 was actually passed after 4.10.2022 and the same was received by the petitioners on 8.10.2022, and therefore, order dated 4.10.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 19587 of 2022 has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. 6. In view of the aforesaid apprehension that the order dated 3.10.2022 was not passed on 3.10.2022, but was passed after order dated 4.10.2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19587 of 2022 with a back date, only with a view to frustrate the directions issued to the respondent authorities in that petition, this court vide order dated 3.1.2023 adjourned the matter to 9.1.2023 i.e. today to verify the veracity of the aforesaid apprehension. 6.1 Today, Mr. Aayan Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as learned advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt, upon verification of record of Ahmedabad District Panchayat makes a statement at Bar that the order was actually signed on 3.10.2022 and soon after it was signed, it was dispatched on 7.10.2022. Hence, irrespective of the date on which the order was dispatched, the fact remains that the order was signed on 3.10.2022 before the directions were issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19587 of 2022, and therefore, nothing further was required to be done in respect of the aforesaid contention. 7. In view of the above, the apprehension of the petitioners that the aforesaid order dated 3.10.2022 is the order which was though passed after 4.10.2022, but has been given back date just to frustrate the order dated 4.10.2022, is absolutely misconceived. 7. In view of the above, the apprehension of the petitioners that the aforesaid order dated 3.10.2022 is the order which was though passed after 4.10.2022, but has been given back date just to frustrate the order dated 4.10.2022, is absolutely misconceived. Even otherwise, today on examining the petition, this Court finds that the respondent No. 2 has examined all the allegations levelled against the present Sarpanch-Bharatbhai Rambhai Bharwad, who has not been joined as party respondent deliberately by the petitioners and on examination of each of the issues, the respondent No. 2 has come to the conclusion that no case is made out to initiate proceedings under Sections 32 and 57 of the Act, 1993. On perusal of the aforesaid order, this Court is of the view that the respondent No. 2 has not committed any error nor any irregularity has been committed by him. 7.1 Further, when the advocate for the petitioners himself has made a statement at the Bar that the order dated 4.10.2022 was received by advocate for the petitioners on 11.10.2022 on his email the question of passing any order with a back date does not arise simply for the reason that it is the case of the petitioners that they received order dated 3.10.2022 on 8.10.2022, which also completely destroys the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners that there was a back dated order just to frustrate order dated 4.10.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 19587 of 2022. 8. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out even for issuance of notice and the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.