SCA/1217020/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12170 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ===================================================== 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 ? ===================================================== DEVSINGBHAI KANUBHAI PAWAR & 4 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR DHAVAL M BAROT for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5. MR VINAY S PANDYA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s):1 -2 MR PRANAV V SHAH for Respondent(s) : 3, MR BHUSHAN B OZA for Respondent(s) : 4, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 04/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/1217020/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 2. The petitioners by this petition, have challenged the order dated 6.9.2008 passed by the State Authority in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction, whereby the motion of no confidence passed against the respondent No.4 in capacity as Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat is set aside and it is further directed to re-induct the respondent No.4 in power as Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat. 3. Heard Mr. Barot, laerned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Vinay S. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Pranav Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. Bhushan Oza, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that two questions arises for consideration: one is jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 259 of of the Gujarat SCA/1217020/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT Panchayat Act, 1993 inasmuch as whether the State Government will have any power to exercise revisional jurisdiction, in a case of motion of no confidence passed against the office bearer of the any Panchayat and the second is that whether it can be said that any prejudice is caused to the petitioners on account of alleged practice played by the majority group of five members of the Gram Panchayat. 5. I would have recorded the reasons for interfering with the order passed by the State Government and consequential order for re-induction of the respondent No.4 in power as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, however, the learned counsel for both the sides conceded that the issue has arisen for consideration in the present petition, is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Geetaben L. Rathwa Vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2005] 9 G.H.J. 414. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for both the sides have not invited the reasons and hence, I find that it may not be necessary for this Court with regard to the reasons, more particularly, the issues are covered by the above decision in the SCA/1217020/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT case Geetaben Rathwa (Supra). Suffice it to state that in view of above referred decisions of this Court, the State Government will have no revisional power nor it can be said that any prejudice is caused to the petitioners on account of alleged practice played by the majority group. 6. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the State Government cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. It is further directed that the election of the post for Sanpanch, which has fallen vacant on account of motion of no confidence against the respondent No.4, shall be filled in by the concerned authority by holding election in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the receipt of the order of this Court. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) ynvyas