Gujarat High Court
Ilaben Pankajbhai Bharvad vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4810 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
ILABEN PANKAJBHAI BHARVAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SP MAJMUDAR with MR NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR G R MANAV(6064) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 13/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule for the respective respondents.
2. This petition is filed challenging the resolution/ proceedings dated 14.03.2024 passed by Vasna Chacharvadi Village Panchayat (Annexure B page 19), whereby No Confidence Motion against the petitioner was passed.
Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
3. Brief facts as referred in the petition are as under:
3.1 Pursuant to election held on 04.12.2021, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Vasna Chacharvadi Village Panchayat. Subsequent to her holding of post as Sarpanch of Vasna Chacharvadi Village Panchayat, a No Confidence Motion dated 21.02.2024, was moved by some of the members against the petitioner. Accordingly, a meeting on 07.03.2024 was called by Taluka Development Officer (TDO) for motion of no confidence. The petitioner attended the meeting dated 14.03.2024, which is evidence from the attendance sheet. It is case of the petitioner that though she was present in the meeting dated 14.03.2024, she was not allowed or permitted to speak and, therefore, this petition was filed. It is case of the petitioner that since she was not permitted to speak, in the No Confidence Motion dated 14.03.2024, there is breach of Section 56 of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 ("the Act" for short), and therefore, this petition is filed.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nishit Gandhi for learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for the petitioner. Learned advocate submitted that action of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner is illegal and in breach of Section 56 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act because No Confidence Motion dated Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 14.03.2024, was passed in an illegal manner removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. This aspect is evident from minutes of the meeting because since, the petitioner was present in the meeting held on 14.03.2024, she had signed the attendance sheet. However, the minutes were not signed by her because she was not provided with the opportunity to speak. Moreover, despite sought for, she was not permitted to write anything in the minutes of the meeting and, therefore, the action of No Confidence Motion being contrary to Section 56 of the Act deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.1. Learned advocate further submitted that since the petitioner was not permitted to speak despite request made, the only option available to her was not to sign the minutes of the meeting, which she did, which proves the case of the petitioner that she was not allowed to speak in the meeting. Moreover, there is nothing on record which justifies that the petitioner was granted opportunity to speak. Further, Dy. Sarpanch of the said village panchayat by malafide intention moved No Confidence Motion. Learned advocate further submitted that as held by various decisions, if an opportunity to speak as per Section 56(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act is not provided, No Confidence Motion is violative and the meeting of No Confidence Motion being invalid, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 4.2. Learned advocate further submitted that No Confidence Motion was initiated by Dy. Sarpanch who presided the meeting, this being indicative of malafide action, the No Confidence Motion dated 14.03.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.3. In support of the submissions, learned advocate relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Laljibhai Dhanjibhai Unagar vs. Khambha Taluka Panchayat, Khambha Thro Taluka reported in 2015 (3) GLR 2424 (paras 11 to 15)
(ii) Kailasba Jilubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2015 (2) GLR 1168 (paras 9, 12, 13 and 15)
(iii) Kamuben Kadvaji Thakor vs. District Development Officer reported in 2018 JX (guj) 97 (paras 12 and 13)
(iv) Devshibhai Chanabhai Makwana vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2015 JX (Guj) 511 (paras 11 and 12)
(v) Suvarnaben Chetanbhai Raval vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2014 (5) GLR 4277 (paras 12 to 15) 4.4. Moreover, though contended by respondents in its reply Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined that entire proceedings have been video-graphed, nothing is placed on record to justify their submissions and that submissions therefore, deserves ignorance. Learned advocate thus, submitted that appropriate directions may be issued.
5. Opposing the petition, learned AGP Mr.Rohan Raval for respondent No.2 submitted that participation of the proceedings in the No Confidence Motion is not in dispute. Further as per the affidavits filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is evidence that the meeting was presided in presence of Talati Cum Mantri. Further, the affidavit of Talati Cum Mantri also states that representative of Taluka Development Officer was also present in the meeting. Moreover, as per the various decisions of this Court, the participation of the petitioner in the proceeding is sufficient. When she was present in the meeting, the submission that she was not permitted to speak without making any attempt is not to be believed and, therefore, the present petition deserves rejection.
6. Supporting the submissions of learned AGP, learned advocate Mr.Devang Bhatt for learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that entire proceedings are explained by Talati Cum Mantri in his affidavit dated 02.04.2024. From the affidavit, it is evident that prior to meeting of No Confidence Motion dated Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 14.03.2024, the petitioner was served and accordingly she participated in the meeting. In the meeting held on 14.03.2024, the petitioner as well as all other members were present. One Shri R.K.Limbachiya, Statistical Assistant of Sanand Taluka Panchayat was also present as representative of respondent No.2. On 14.03.2024, the meeting was proceeded by one Chhotabhai Manilal Chauhan, Upa-Sarpanch of Vasna Chacharvadi Village Panchayat - Respondent No.4. The said meeting started at 12:30 noon and ended nearly after 40 minutes. As stated in the affidavit, the petitioner addressed the members of Gram Panchayat for nearly 10 minutes and thereafter No Confidence Motion was voted. Learned advocate therefore submitted that No Confidence Motion was done after following due procedure and in presence of authorities of State Government. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that she was not permitted to speak is contrary to the facts on record and misconceived.
7. The said averments made in the affidavit dated 02.04.2024 by Talati Cum Mantri is once again supported by affidavit dated 06.04.2024 of Taluka Development Officer (respondent No.2). Learned advocate Mr. G.R.Manav for respondent No.4 by placing reliance on affidavit dated 16.04.2024 (page 97) submitted that the meeting for No Confidence Motion was held on 14.03.2024. Referring to Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined application dated 21.02.2024 (at page 110) of other seven members of the said Gram Panchayat, learned advocate submitted that contention raised that No Confidence Motion was initiated at the instance of respondent No.4 is incorrect. The said application of No Confidence Motion was filed by seven out of nine members of the said Gram Panchayat and accordingly, the action was initiated by holding the meeting. Moreover, as stated herein above, the meeting was held on 14.03.2024 which lasted for 40 minutes and in the said meeting, the petitioner was permitted to speak for 10 minutes out of 40 minutes. Therefore, the contention raised that she was not allowed to speak is incorrect. Moreover, presence of petitioner is not in dispute as she has signed the attendance sheet. In relation to the averment of not signing the minutes of the meeting, learned advocate submitted that as she has chosen not to sign for which, adverse inference may not be drawn since as per settled legal position, the participation of the petitioner is sufficient and as held by this Court in various decisions once she had participated in the meeting, the contention of not permitting to speak cannot be raised at a later stage. In support of submissions, following decisions are relied upon.
(i) Bharat Ravjibhai Vadi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in LPA No.983 of 2018 dated 04.08.2021 Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
(ii) Laljibhai Ramjibhai Makwana vs. The District Development Officer in LPA No.930 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021
(iii) Hitendrasinh Pravinsinh Zala vs. Taluka Vikas Adhikari in SCA No.13087 of 2019 dated 30.11.2021
(iv) Taraben Rameshbhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat & 2 Ors.
in LPA No.145 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018
(vi) Parshottambhai Talsibhai Chhaniyara vs. Taluka Vikas Adhikari Taluka Panchayat Mandal in LPA No.1135 of 2018 dated 31.08.2018.
8. Considered the submissions. The short issue involved in the present case is whether No Confidence Motion is required to be quashed and set aside as prayed for by the petitioner, only on the ground that she was not allowed to speak or she was not provided with an opportunity of speaking during No Confidence Motion dated 14.03.2024. Upon revisitation of facts, it is noticed that participation of the petitioner in the meeting is not in dispute. Participation of the petitioner in the meeting dated 14.03.2024 is evident from her signature in the attendance sheet. Moreover, it is not in dispute that she was informed well in time of having the meeting on 14.03.2024 for Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined No Confidence Motion. Moreover, from the application dated 21.02.2024, it is noticed that the said application was preferred by seven members out of nine members for holding meeting of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. Therefore, the averment made in the petition that only Upa-Sarpanch had initiated No Confidence Motion, in the opinion of this Court is misconceived and contrary to the document on record. There are several grounds raised in the application dated 21.02.2024 for initiating proceedings of No Confidence Motion. Further, the affidavits filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, suggest that the meeting was presided by Upa-Sarpanch of Vasna Chacharvadi Village Panchayat. However, the same was held in presence of representative of respondent No.2 and Talati Cum Mantri. In relation to whether the petitioner is permitted to speak or not in the No Confidence Motion held on 14.03.2024, this Court is of the opinion that as held by this Court that if a Sarpanch does not even oppose to No Confidence Motion or does not even address the meeting, it cannot be said that there is a denial of opportunity to speak in the said meeting. At this juncture, if the language employed in sub-section (3) of Section 56 is perused, it would clearly indicate that person against whom No Confidence Motion is moved "shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings of such a meeting including the right to vote". The principle underlying behind this provision is to ensure that such person would be Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined able to persuade or convince the members so as to why said Motion of No Confidence should be dropped or in other words, it should not be carried forward.
9. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that she was not present in the meeting. The participation of the petitioner without any demur or objection and then permitting the No Confidence Motion to move against her cannot turn around and contain that there is a duty cast upon on the part of the person who has presided over the meeting to call upon such person to speak even if she is not willing and such fact in the minutes of the meeting is required to be recorded. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Laljibhai Ramjibhai Makwana vs. The District Development Officer in LPA No.930 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021, wherein it is held as under:
"11. At the cost of burdening this judgment, it requires to be noticed that learned Single Judge has noted and extracted the statement made by Talati- cum-Mantri who was respondent No.3 and who had filed an affidavit in Special Civil Application reiterating that there was due compliance of sub- section (3) of Section 56 whereunder 3rd respondent before learned Single Judge has categorically contended and stated that agenda of the meeting Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined convened for the purposes of moving No Confidence Motion against the petitioner was served upon all members including petitioner and Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat presided over the meeting and after discussion, No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner was put to vote. It is also noticed by learned Single Judge that affidavit of 3rd respondent at para 10 disclosed that petitioner was present at the meeting throughout, had even opposed the No Confidence Motion moved against him and had not even made an attempt to address at the meeting. In other words, there was no denial of opportunity to the petitioner to speak at the said meeting. At this juncture, if the language employed in sub-section (3) of Section 56 is perused, it would clearly indicate that person against whom No Confidence Motion is moved, "shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings of such a meeting (including the right to vote)". The principle underlying behind this provision is to ensure that such person would be able to persuade or convince the members as to why said Motion of No Confidence should be dropped or in other words, it should not be carried forward. In a given case, if a person against whom No Confidence Motion is moved were to sit at the said meeting does not speak at the said meeting or participates in the meeting without any demur or objection and allows the No Confidence Motion to be moved against him, cannot turn around and contend that there is a duty Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined cast on the part of the person who presided over the meeting to call upon such person to speak even if he is not willing and record such fact in the minutes of the meeting. This argument would only be stretching the logic to an illogical end or in other words, adding something to the Statute which is not there. Hence, we are of the considered view that we are in complete agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in Special Civil Application No.8204 of 2018 in the matter of Bharatbhai Ravjibhai Vadi Vs. State of Gujarat on 11-7-2018 whereunder it has been held that there is no right conferred on a person against whom No Confidence Motion is moved, to invite him to speak. Right to speak is inherent as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 56 and it would also be the choice or discretion of such person to exercise his right to speak and object to the Motion of No Confidence or otherwise participate in the proceedings without even objecting and such person would also be certified to remain silent or would be certified not to speak against the Motion of No Confidence. Right to remain silent is also inherent and it cannot be gainsaid that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the person presiding over the meeting to call upon such person to speak and record in the minutes of the meeting of such opportunity having been extended dehors the fact that the person having not sought for such opportunity being extended to speak at the meeting".Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
10. In one more decision in the case of Hitendrasinh Pravinsinh Zala vs. Taluka Vikas Adhikari in SCA No.13087 of 2019 dated 30.11.2021 in paragraph Nos.6,2, 6.3 and 7 it is held as under:
" 6.2 Even in the case of Laljibhai Makwana (supra) and in the case of Parshottambhai Talsibhai Chhaniyara (supra), it is evident that the Division Bench observed that the Sarpanch against whom the motion is moved could exercise his Right to Speak before the motion is passed or otherwise he could take part in the proceedings including to exercise his Right to Vote. There is no right conferred on him to invite him to speak. It could, therefore, never be the proposition that until he exercises his Right to Speak motion could not be passed. It would be his choice or discretion whether to exercise his Right to Speak and raise objection against motion.
6.3 From the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Laljibhai Ramjibhai Makwana (supra), what is evident is that if the Sarpanch does not even oppose the No Confidence Motion, or does not even attempt to address the meeting, it cannot be said that there is a denial of opportunity to speak at the said meeting.Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 7 In a given case, if a person against whom No Confidence Motion is moved were to sit at the said meeting, does not speak at the meeting and participates without any demur cannot turn around and contend that it is the duty cast on the part of the person who presides over the meeting to call upon such person to speak".
11. In another decision in the case of Taraben Rameshbhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat & 2 Ors. in LPA No.145 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 it is held as under:
"5. Section 56 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 provides for moving no confidence motion against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. As per Section 56(3) of the Act, if any no confidence motion is moved against the Sarpanch or UpSarpanch, they cannot preside over the meeting but they have right to speak or otherwise to take part in proceedings of such meeting. In the present case on hand, it is not in dispute that after requisition is made for moving no confidence motion, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 21.8.2017 by which she was called upon to remain present in the meeting in the office of the village panchayat at 1.00 p.m. on 31.8.2017. The receipt of such letter is not disputed but it is submitted that she was waiting outside. When the panchayat meeting was held to discuss the no Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined confidence motion moved against the appellant, there is no reason for the appellant to wait outside the panchayat office having received the notice. If the appellant wanted to say anything, it was open for her to participate in the meeting and to speak. But having failed to utilize the opportunity, it cannot be said that the appellant was denied opportunity of hearing. Even with regard to other contention that the meeting was preceded by Taluka Panchayat Officer also is no ground to invalidate the resolution dated 31.8.2017 on the said ground. Merely because the Taluka Panchayat Officer has participated in the meeting, it has not caused any prejudice to the appellant so far as to defend the no confidence motion moved against the appellant. If at all such participation also is not correct, the same can be considered as irregularity but not illegality so as to invalidate the resolution itself.
6. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.1.2018, we are of the view that no case is made out for interference in this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, civil application also stands dismissed. No order as to costs."
12. Comparing the facts of our case, since the petitioner has Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4810/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined participated in the proceedings but she was not in a position to convince the other members present during the meeting of not having passed the No Confidence Motion, in the opinion of this Court there cannot be stated to be breach of Section 56(3) of the Act and in view of above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V./128 Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:58:47 IST 2025