Vasava Rajeshbhai Motising vs State Of Gujarat Thro Deputy Secretary & ... on 17 March, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vasava Rajeshbhai Motising vs State Of Gujarat Thro Deputy Secretary & ... on 17 March, 2015

Author: Ks Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee

          C/LPA/469/2015                                     ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 469 of 2015

           In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13291 of 2012
                                   With
                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3388 of 2015
                                     In
               LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 469 of 2015
================================================================
           VASAVA RAJESHBHAI MOTISING....Appellant(s)
                          Versus
 STATE OF GUJARAT THRO DEPUTY SECRETARY & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
JAGATSINH L VASAVA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS.DILBUR CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
                and
                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
                      Date : 17/03/2015
                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellantoriginal petitioner against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13291 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that though specific ground is taken in the writ petition that there is no possibility to commit any mischief or irregularity by the appellant in Page 1 of 4 C/LPA/469/2015 ORDER view of the fact that the charge of Sarpanch was not handed over to the appellant when the "Notice of motion of no confidence" was moved.

However, we find that no such contention has been raised by the appellant either before the competent authority or before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it will not be appropriate for entertain the aforesaid contention at this stage.

3. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 has observed as under: "7. Main focus is with regard to Section of the Panchayat Act read with Rules. The proposal for no confidence motion is required to be considered. Sections 91 to 95 refer to conduct of business of Panchayat. The motion of no confidence could be moved and dealt with as provided in Section 84. Section 84(4)(A) provides that the meeting of the panchayat for dealing with such issue of no confidence motion shall be called within 15 days from the date on which the notice of motion is received by the Panchayat. Section 84(4)(B) refers to consequence if the President fails to call such meeting that a secretary may call the meeting of panchayat within period of 15 days from the date of such a report. This itself would suggest that period of 15 days cannot be considered as a rigid limitation and any business transaction would be void or illegal. In fact, reliance placed by learned advocate, Shri Nangesh referring to the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in case of Jagrutiben Babubhai Shah (supra) clearly referred to this aspect that the Legislative intent has to be gathered from the attending provisions and entire scheme of the Act with special focus on the provisions contained for convening a meeting for considering no confidence motion. Thus, underlying purpose has to be the consideration of no confidence motion within a prescribed period as far as possible.

Page 2 of 4 C/LPA/469/2015 ORDER

8. It is required to be noted that in this judgment, the High Court has considered the earlier judgment in case of Gopaldas Vs. Lunavada Nagar Panchayat, reported in 1985(2) GLR 1047 and it has been observed that in case of Gopaldas, the President was to convene the meeting, had held meeting beyond a period of 15 days and then question the validity of such motion. Therefore in the case of Gopaldas, the court had made observations. In any view of the matter, the legislative intent has to be gathered from the entire scheme of the act. The interpretation cannot be made in a narrow and rigid manner, which frustrated the cause."

4. Having carefully gone through the discussions made by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has, for cogent reasons, dismissed the writ petition. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is completely justified in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, in our view, it will not be appropriate to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

6. Since the main appeal is dismissed, the Civil Application for stay does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.

Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/469/2015 ORDER

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) pawan Page 4 of 4

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court