Gujarat High Court
Madhuben Vakhatsinh Parmar vs Intwad Village Panchayat & 2 on 5 December, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
SCA/1388120/2008 1/4 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13881 of 2008
=====================================================
MADHUBEN VAKHATSINH PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
INTWAD VILLAGE PANCHAYAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance :
MR SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s)
: 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
=====================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date : 05/12/2008
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. It prima facie appears that the principal grievance of the petitioner is that he could not address the meeting at the time when motion was considered. Therefore, it has been submitted that there is prejudice caused and therefore, motion of no confidence, which has been passed against the petitioner be interfered with.
SCA/1388120/2008 2/4 ORDER 3. Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to two decisions of this
Court : one was in case of Geetaben L. Rathwa Vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2005] 9 G.H.J. (414), wherein the view taken by this Court based on two earlier decisions of this Court: one of the learned Single Judge of this Court and another of Division Bench of this Court in case of Patel Manubhai Khodidas Vs. Shri Sonara & Ors. reported in 1989(2) GLR 1215 and Letters Patent Appeal No.223 of 1988 in case of Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai Vs. Upleta Municipality. As per the said decision in case of Geetaben Rathwa, the Court has taken view that such would not result into in serious prejudice to the petitioner. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the another decision of this Court in case of Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported 2006(1) GLH 91, wherein the view taken by another Single Judge of this Court is that it can be said as prejudice caused. However, he fairly submitted that in later decision of this Court in case of Geetaben Patel (Supra), the attention of this Court was not brought to the earlier decision of SCA/1388120/2008 3/4 ORDER Geetaben Rathwa.
4. In view of the aforesaid observations, hence, RULE. So far as interim relief is concerned, the petitioner is also removed as Sarpanch and therefore, as per the settled legal position by interim order, he cannot be re-inducted into power and if re- inducted, it would result into allowing the petition at this stage, which may not be granted.
5. Further perusal of the matter shows that in all, there were 8 elected representatives in the Gram Panchayat, who attended the meeting out of which except the vote of the petitioner himself, 7 members have supported the motion of no confidence. Therefore, it is a case of 7 Vs. 1. The petitioner had as such the opportunity to address, but has not availed of the opportunity. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been denied such opportunity, which cannot be finalised at admission stage. Further 7 members have supported the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. If the petitioner is permitted to function, majority is against the SCA/1388120/2008 4/4 ORDER petitioner and has lost confidence. Not only that, but as per the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, once motion is carried out by the requisite majority by way of statutory fiction the seat of Sarpanch would fall vacant, which in any case has fallen vacant. Therefore, statutory deeming fiction of vacancy cannot be nullified by interim order until, all questions are decided in favour of the petitioner at the final disposal.
6. Aforesaid is coupled with the circumstances, this Court in case of Geetaben Rathwa by relying earlier two decisions of this Court including Division Bench's judgment of this Court, has taken view that no prejudice is caused.
7. Under these circumstances, interim relief is refused.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) ynvyas