LPA/1455/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1455 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= SHANTABEN BACHUBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR ROHIT S SHARMA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR APURVA DAVE, A.G.P for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, 4, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI LPA/1455/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT Date : 23/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 25/26.08.2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's petition challenging the order of removal from the office of Sarpanch of Bopal Gram Panchayat by the District Development Officer, Ahmedabad and confirmed by the Additional Development Commissioner. 2. The appellant was elected as the Sarpanch of Bopal Gram Panchayat at the election held on 25.12.2006. In the meantime, writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1128 of 2005 was filed before this Court complaining about water logging and unclean conditions in the Panchayat area. This Court had passed an interim order on 15th February, 2006 and in compliance, the Revenue Department had issued directives on 1st May, 2006 that till further instructions, no permission for conversion of land for non-agricultural use should be granted by the Panchayat. Inspite of such directives, several constructions were going on unabated and no steps were taken for halting such construction activities. The appellant had granted permission to construct building on plot Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in survey No. 636 on 8th March, 2007 and similarly permission was granted to put up construction on plot Nos.33, 34 and 35 in survey No.262 on 16th April, 2007. There were many such instances and in the above cases the appellant had granted building permission even without the Gram Panchayat granting such permission. Even after the appellant resumed the office in January-2007, the Gram Panchayat was informed by communication dated 16th March, 2007 of the higher authorities that unauthorized construction be stopped and LPA/1455/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT necessary report be made to the Taluka Development Officer. Far from complying with such direction, the appellant went on giving building permissions even in April and May-2007. 3. In view of the above, the appellant was served with the notice to show cause as to why the appellant should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The appellant submitted her reply contending that the instructions of the Revenue Department were received before the appellant took over the charge as Sarpanch on 17th January, 2007; and that the responsibility to carry out the instructions was that of the Talati- cum-Mantri and the Talati-cum-Mantri had not brought such instructions to the notice of the appellant. The District Development Officer did not accept the said explanation and passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2007 holding that the appellant has committed misconduct in discharge of her duties and a number of development permissions i.e. building permissions were granted after this Court had prohibited the same and the Revenue Department had issued instructions. Such permissions were granted even after the prohibitory instructions were conveyed to the Panchayat on 16.03.2007 and in as many as 8 cases without the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat, the appellant had granted such permission and thereby committed grave misconduct. The District Development Officer also noticed that in a large number of cases of unauthorized construction, no notices were issued against the erring land owners. The District Development Officer also rejected the contention that it was the duty of the Talati-cum-Mantri to control such illegal activity. 4. The appeal against the order of the D.D.O. came to be rejected by the Additional Development Commissioner. LPA/1455/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 5. The petition challenging the above orders has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by a detailed judgment dealing with all the contentions raised by the appellant including the contention that the agenda notices of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat were not faithfully recorded. The agenda notices as well as the resolutions were found to have been duly signed by the members and in the subsequent meetings, proceedings of the previous meetings were read over and approved. No member had objected to any of the minutes of the previous meetings. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that even if there was any illegality in the Resolutions of the Gram Panchayat, the Taluka Panchayat as well as the District Panchayat had power to set aside such Resolutions, but removal of the appellant from the office of Sarpanch was not warranted. 7. This contention cannot be accepted, merely because the Taluka Panchayat as well as the District Panchayat had power to set aside the Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat, that is not an answer to the charges levelled against the appellant - that she was guilty of misconduct in the discharge of her duties or of disgraceful conduct or abused her power or made persistent default in the performance of her duties and functions under the Act. The other members of the Bopal Gram Panchayat have already been removed by the District Development Officer and the Administrator appointed by the State Government is running the administration of the Bopal Gram Panchayat. LPA/1455/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT 8. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [M.S.SHAH, J.] [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] jani