Gujarat High Court
Anantkumar Dwarkadas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 19 July, 2023
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22348 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22348 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ANANTKUMAR DWARKADAS PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VC VAGHELA(1720) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AKASH CHHAYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 19/07/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the petitioner, learned Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined AGP Mr. Akash Chhaya for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the respondent No.4.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner calls into question an order passed by the respondent No.2-Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State, dated 14.10.2022, whereby the present petitioner has been disqualified as an elected member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kapadvanj, (for short "APMC").
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Advocate Mr. Dipen Desai appearing for the respondent No.4 - APMC has taken a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present petition, more particularly contending that while Section 13(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") states about disqualification by the Director, Section 13(2) provides a provision of appeal before the State Government and whereas according to learned Advocate Mr. Desai, the petitioner having not availed of an alternative remedy, this petition may not be entertained by this Court.
4. As against the same, learned Advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the petitioner would submit that the present petition has already been admitted by a learned Co-ordinate Bench and Rule Nisi had been issued vide an order Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined dated 22.12.2022, therefore now the aspect of an alternative remedy may not survive.
5. As against such contention, learned Advocate Mr. Desai relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S., reported in 2008 (12) SCC 675, would contend that in the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia laid down the law that upon issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders, while that may be a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition even if there in an alternative remedy, but it cannot be held that even if there is an alternative remedy once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the said ground.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties as regards the preliminary objection and more particularly having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. (supra), it would clearly appear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law that while issuance of rule nisi may be a consideration which may weigh with the Court for not dismissing a petition on ground of alternative remedy, yet merely on account of rule nisi being issued, it could not be contended that a petition could not be dismissed on the ground of Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined alternative remedy. The law having been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No. 38 is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
"38. Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ-Court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ-petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ-petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner.
6.1 Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while it would appear that rule nisi having been issued, would not automatically allow a petitioner to contend that a petition could not be dismissed on ground of alternative remedy, but at the same time it would be required to be considered that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the same may be a relevant consideration which may weigh with the Court for not dismissing a petition.
7. In any case, in the considered opinion of this Court, having heard learned Advocates for the parties on merits and having perused the record, it clearly appears to this Court that the impugned order is passed in violation Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined of the principle of natural justice and whereas the same being a recognized exception to the self impose restraint of not entertaining the petition inspite of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, in the considered opinion of this Court, the preliminary objection by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 cannot be countenanced and is hereby rejected.
8. On merits, learned Advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an elected member of the APMC, Kapadvanj, more particularly elected from the constituency of agriculturists. Learned Advocate would submit that initially, a show-cause notice came to be issued by the respondent No.2 herein dated 02.03.2021 inter alia alleging that complaints have been received from number of agriculturists requesting that the petitioner should be removed as a member of the Managing Committee of the APMC. It is further alleged that the petitioner is continuously engaged in activities which is causing loss and which is causing hindrance to the smooth functioning of the APMC and whereas it is alleged that the petitioner is in the habit of making applications, after inquiry upon which, it is found that the same are baseless, resulting in wastage of time of the APMC. It is further alleged that the petitioner is engaged in making false allegations against the interest of the APMC in the social media as well as other print media and whereas the same has been inspected by third party inspections and whereas it also appears that the allegations of the present Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined petitioner are found to be baseless. Having regard to such allegations, the petitioner was called upon to file his reply and/or make his submissions with regard to the allegations. It would appear that pursuant to the reply submitted by the present petitioner, an inquiry had been held and ultimately vide an order dated 14.10.2022, the respondent No.2- Director had deemed it appropriate to disqualify the present petitioner. 8.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, reported in 2012 (4) SCC 407, and would submit that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court has not been complied with in the present issue. Learned Advocate would submit that no misconduct whatsoever appears to have been committed by the present petitioner and whereas the respondent No.2 - Director has come to a conclusion that the present petitioner is guilty of misconduct. It is also submitted by learned Advocate that merely making applications to higher authorities or raising complaints in print media or social media, by itself cannot be stated to be misconduct and whereas according to the learned Advocate, one of his complaint has also resulted in some action being taken against the APMC. Learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela has also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Chimanbhai R. Patel Vs. Anand Municipality reported in 1983 (1) GLR 67 and decision in case of Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined Virbalaben Girishbhai Trivedi and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2010 (2) GLH 1245 in support of his submissions. Having regard to the submissions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela would request this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2022.
9. This petition is vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr. Akash Chhaya appearing for the respondent-State. Learned AGP Mr. Chhaya would submit that the respondent No.2 - Director before taking any steps had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and whereas after giving an adequate opportunity to the present petitioner the order impugned of disqualifying the present petitioner has been passed. Learned AGP would submit that cogent grounds have been mentioned in the order impugned and whereas learned AGP would submit that there are no reasons as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, for setting aside the order in question. Under such circumstances, learned AGP would request this Court not to interfere with the impugned order.
10. This petition is also vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Mr. Dipen Desai appearing for the respondent No.4 -APMC. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would submit that the respondent No.2-Director, having granted Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined an opportunity to the present petitioner, has given proper reasons as to why he felt that the petitioner should be disqualified. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai has taken this Court through the reasons as found in the order impugned and would submit that the reasons as weighed with the authority concerned would clearly show that the present petitioner had committed misconduct which had rendered him as being ineligible for continuing as a member of Managing Committee of the APMC. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would therefore request this Court not to interfere with the impugned order.
11. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties who have not submitted anything else.
12. At the outset, in the considered opinion of this Court, since the respondent No.2 has exercised power available to the respondent No.2 under Section 13 of the Act, therefore, for the present purpose reproduction of the said Section would be beneficial.
"13. Liability of members of market committee to removal from office.- (1) (i) The Director may, by an order remove any member of the market committee elected or nominated under this Act, if after holding such inquiry as he may deem fit, the Director is of the opinion that such member has been guilty of neglect or misconduct in the discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct or has become incapable of performing his duties as a member : Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined Provided further that no order for removal of the member shall be passed by the Director unless the member has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(ii) A member, if removed under clause (i), shall be disqualified to be eligible for becoming a member of the same market committee for a period of six years.
(2) A member so removed may, within 30 days of the date of communication thereof to him, make an appeal to the State Government.
(3) The decision of the State Government on appeal made under sub-
section (2) and subject thereto, the decision of the Director under sub-section (1), shall be final."
12.1 A bare perusal of Section 13 would reveal that a member could be removed by the Director, after holding an inquiry and whereas the Director has to form an opinion that the member has been guilty of (i) neglect (ii) misconduct (iii) disgraceful conduct, or (iv) incapability. It appears that beyond these four aspects, the Director would not be empowered to remove an elected member of the Market Committee.
13. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others (supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the case of the Appellant who was President of Municipal Council, having been disqualified for remaining tenure of Municipal Councilership under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined Industrial Townships Act. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to exercise of powers of removal made at Paragraphs No. 28 to 36 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
"28. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, this Court considered the issue of removal of an elected office-bearer and held that where the statutory provision has very serious repercussions, it implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions. All the safeguards and protections provided under the statute have to be kept in mind while exercising such a power. The Court considering its earlier judgments in Mohinder Kumar v. State and Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala held as under:
"28....It must be borne in mind that severer the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed."
29. The Constitution Bench of this Court in G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala held that if all the safeguards provided under the statute are not observed, an order having serious consequences is passed without proper application of mind, having a casual approach to the matter, the same can be characterised as having been passed mala fide, and thus, is liable to be quashed.
30. There can also be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that removal of a duly elected member on the basis of proved misconduct is a quasi-judicial proceeding in nature. [Vide Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare]. This view stands further fortified by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Bachhitar Singh v. State of Punjab and Union of India v. H.C. Goel. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be given full play Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined and strict compliance should be ensured, even in the absence of any provision providing for the same. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office-bearer.
31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. If a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office- bearer can be removed without holding a full fledged inquiry.
32. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal, termination or reduction in rank, a full-fledged inquiry is required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be understood in an entirely different context as compared to the government employees, for the reason, that for the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required.
33. This Court examined the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, providing for the procedure of removal of the President of the Municipal Council on similar grounds in Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and observed that removal of an elected office-bearer is a serious matter. The elected office-bearer must not be removed unless a clear-cut case is made out, for the reason that holding and enjoying an office, discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the elected member but also of his constituency or electoral college. His removal may curtail the term of the office-bearer and also cast stigma upon him. Therefore, the procedure prescribed under a statute for removal must be strictly adhered to and unless a clear case is made out, there can be no justification for his removal. While taking the decision, the authority should not be guided by any other extraneous consideration or should not come under any political pressure.
Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined
34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement of natural justice and the decision must show that the authority has applied its mind to the allegations made and the explanation furnished by the elected office- bearer sought to be removed.
35. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal (vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareily and Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari).
36. In view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that an elected member can be removed in exceptional circumstances giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and holding the enquiry, meeting the requirement of principles of natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity to defend himself, for the reason that removal of an elected person casts stigma upon him and takes away his valuable statutory right. Not only the elected office-bearer but his constituency/electoral college is also deprived of representation by the person of his choice." 13.1 Considering the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would appear that in case of removal of elected office-bearer, the statutory Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined safeguards are required to be scrupulously followed. It is also laid down that removal of a duly elected member on basis of proved misconduct is a quasi- judicial proceeding. Furthermore, it is laid down that an elected official in a local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. The observations being that like a government employee who cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without a full-fledged inquiry, an elected official cannot be removed without following due process of law, more particularly giving strict adherence to statutory provisions and holding an inquiry, meeting with the principles of natural justice and giving an opportunity to the elected representative to defend himself.
14. Considering the facts of the case from the perspective of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would appear that the statute i.e. Section 13 of the Act, inter alia envisages holding an inquiry as deem fit by the Director. It is also envisaged that the Director after the inquiry has to reach an opinion that the member has become incapable of performing his duties. It is also envisaged that the member is required to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
15. The position which emerges is that the statute itself provides for adherence to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, along with an Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined inquiry, it is contemplated that the member who is sought to be removed is given an opportunity of being heard. Again, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others (supra), strict adherence of the statutory provisions is required. In the instant case, it would appear that the breach of the principles had started from the issuance of the show-cause notice itself, inasmuch as, the show-cause notice dated 02.03.2021, is absolutely general in nature without giving any specific details about the misconduct allegedly committed by the present petitioner, more particularly it would appear that the show-cause notice refers to two allegations i.e. (i) with regard to farmers of certain villages having complained against the present petitioner seeking for his removal and (ii) the present petitioner making applications against the APMC resulting in wastage of time and resulting in prestige of the APMC being lowered. It would appear that beyond such general allegations, there are no specific allegations as to the dates of the complaints or as to the decision taken thereupon or as to any specific social media posts etc.
16. It is also required to be mentioned at this stage that in the very judgment of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the meaning of the term misconduct and whereas it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined while misconduct has to be understood as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action or a forbidden act or unlawful behavior which is willful in character and whereas it is further observed that the term misconduct has to be construed and understood with reference to the subject matter and context in which the term occurs. It would appear in the instant case that the respondent No.2-Director has removed the petitioner by holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct, more particularly the acts which are treated as misconduct as appearing from the impugned order being that by making applications seeking information and by making unnecessary applications which resulted into inquiries in which no allegation could be proved, precious time of the APMC has been lost and that the petitioner by making applications to various offices and agencies had damaged the prestige of the APMC. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely by making applications, it could not be held that the petitioner is either guilty of lowering the prestige of the APMC which may amount to misconduct, but at the same time what would be relevant to note herein is that the allegations made and the allegations proved on basis of which the Director has arrived at a subjective satisfaction, are absolutely general in nature.
17. It would appear on perusal of the impugned order that there is no inquiry conducted whatsoever and whereas there is no satisfaction arrived at Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined by the respondent No.2. It would appear that findings of the respondent No.2 start at Para No.8 of the order dated 14.10.2022 and whereas except for giving recital of the procedure which had been adopted, the respondent No.2 has not stated anything specifically as to how the present petitioner had become incapable of continuing as a member of the Managing Committee of the APMC or as to how the present petitioner has committed misconduct. It would appear that the Paras 8(6) of the impugned order states that the petitioner was in the habit of making applications for information (possibly under the RTI Act) and whereas since the Market Committee was required to give answer to the same, valuable time of the Market Committee was wasted in the same. It is also mentioned that the present petitioner used to given number of applications and upon inquiry, no substance was found in the applications. Thus, it appears that the Market Committee may have been prejudiced against the present petitioner, more particularly on account of the present petitioner having a habit of making applications or the present petitioner making complaints/applications against the APMC or against the members of the APMC. Such an observation on account of the fact that there is no specific allegation found in the show-cause notice as noticed hereinabove and as a result of which, even the respondent No.2-Director, may also have been handicapped from Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined passing any order specifically as regards any misconduct committed by the present petitioner.
17.1 It further appears that the opinion as required to be formed by the respondent No.2 is found at the conclusion of the impugned order where it is observed by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner on account of his acts of making repeated applications was hindering the progress of the APMC, therefore the petitioner was guilty of misconducting himself and as a result of which he is incapable of further continuing as member of the Managing Committee of the APMC.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the respondent No.2, may have the power or authority under Section 13 to disqualify a member of the Market Committee elected or nominated, the requirements of the Director holding an inquiry and forming an opinion could not be done away with. Furthermore, as noticed from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, appropriate opportunity is also required to be given to such member, more particularly the member would be required to be informed of the specific charge levelled against him and whereas an opportunity to meet with the charges would also be required to be given to the member concerned. It is only upon the Director coming to an independent Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined conclusion, more particularly after affording an opportunity in consonance with the principles of natural justice to the member concerned on the charges levelled against him, that the member was guilty of either negligence, misconduct, disgraceful conduct or incapability, that the Director would be entitled to resort to the extraordinary powers under Section 13 to disqualify a member. In the instant case, in the considered opinion of this Court, since the petitioner has not been given any specific charges against him and whereas the allegations as found in the show-cause notice, clearly appear to be general in nature, the impugned order also suffers from same infirmities.
19. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the power of removal is intended to be exercised, more particularly when the statute envisages an inquiry and coupled with the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is required to be held that the show-cause notice should contain details of allegations against the elected representative on the basis of which action is sought to be taken against him. It is observed that in adherence to the principles of natural justice and the requirement to conduct an inquiry, pre- supposes that the elected representative who is sought to be removed, is issued with a show-cause notice, specifically detailing the charges against the elected representative and the material on basis of which the charges are Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined being levelled. Furthermore, to be consistent with the principles of natural justice and in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others (supra), the member concerned is also required to be given an opportunity to controvert the allegations/charges levelled against him. The final order which would be passed by the Director should also be a reasoned order which should spell the reasons which weighed with the Director for rejecting the defence of the member charge/allegation wise. Again, the above requirements would be furthering the object of the intent of the legislature as found in Section 13 of the Act, which contemplates, an inquiry as deemed fit by the Director and a reasonable opportunity of being heard being accorded to the member concerned.
20. It would be relevant to mention here that the learned Advocate for the petitioner had submitted that on account of applications made by the petitioner, there was some action taken against the APMC itself and whereas such submission not having been controverted, it would appear that the applications being made by the petitioner were not completely bereft of any substance. Be that as it may, this Court is more concerned with the fact that for removing a member, general allegations had been made and whereas Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined without any material whatsoever, the misconduct had been held to be proved and whereas the petitioner had been removed as an elected member.
21. While at this stage it would be required to be noted that in the impugned order the respondent-Director had inter alia observed that the the petitioner himself did not avail of the opportunity of contesting the show-cause notice, more particularly the petitioner not remaining present on the date when a personal hearing was afforded to him, yet, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same would not justify the action on the part of the respondents of removing the petitioner on absolutely vague allegations.
22. Having regard to the above discussion, observations and conclusion, it would clearly appear that the respondents had not adhered to the principles of natural justice before resorting to the extraordinary action of removing the present petitioner as a member of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.4-APMC. It would also appear that there is no element of misconduct proved, more particularly considering the vague nature of the allegations levelled and proved.
23. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.2- Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22348/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2023 undefined Finance, Gujarat State, is hereby quashed and set aside. The present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
24. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the captioned Civil Application would not survive, hence the same is disposed of accordingly.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:04:52 IST 2023