LPA/87319/1997 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 873 of 1997 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4600 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= MANSING KUKABHAI KOLI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR BN KAKADIYA for Appellant(s) : 1, Ms.TANUJA KACHCHI, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, MR BR KYADA for Respondent(s) : 2, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 09/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) LPA/87319/1997 2/4 JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed being aggrieved by order dated 2nd July 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the petition. 2. The short facts leading to the present appeal are that the petitioner being aggrieved by an order of suspension as Sarpanch passed by the District Development Officer under section 59(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and confirmed in appeal by the State Government under section 59(3) of the said Act filed the above petition. The learned Single Judge has recorded that criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner in connection with an offence registered under section 143, 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act against the petitioner-appellant, Sarpanch. The allegations against the petitioner-appellant, Sarpanch are that he attacked the father of the complainant and he was armed with a Dharia. It is also alleged that original accused no.1 in the criminal case had given an axe blow while the appellant-original petitioner, Sarpanch had given Dharia blow which resulted in grievous injuries to the father of the complainant. On these facts the authorities found that the petitioner, whose duty was to look after the welfare of the people and maintain law and order being Sarpanch of the village was involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. The petitioner was given adequate LPA/87319/1997 3/4 JUDGMENT opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order suspending him from the post of Sarpanch and the said order was challenged in the petition. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms.Tanuja Kachchhi invited attention of the Court to subsection (1) of section 59 of the said Act, which reads as under: “59. Suspension of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. - (1) The District Development Officer may suspend from office the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch of a Village Panchayat against whom any criminal proceedings in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude have been instituted or who has been detained in a prison during trial for any offence or who is undergoing such sentence of imprisonment as would not disqualify him from continuing as a member of the panchayat under section 30 or who has been detained under any law relating to preventive detention for the time being in force.” In the present case, a criminal proceeding was filed against the appellant-original petitioner and taking that into consideration, initially the District Development Officer, Amreli passed the order dated 4th October 1996 suspending the appellant-original petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved of the order dated 4th October 1996 passed by the District Development Officer, the appellant- original petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Development LPA/87319/1997 4/4 JUDGMENT Commissioner, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar being Appeal No.125 of 1996, who by order dated 11th June 1997 dismissed the appeal, vacated the interim order dated 17th October 1996 and confirmed the order dated 4th October 1996 passed by the District Development Officer. 5. The learned advocate for the appellant is not present. The Court perused the papers; not only of the appeal memo but also of the Special Civil Application, wherein the aforesaid two orders, namely, the order passed by the District Development Officer dated 4th October 1996 and the order dated 11th June 1997 passed by the Additional Development are produced. 6. The Court finds no case in favour of the appellant-original petitioner. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (K.M. THAKER, J.) karim