Gujarat High Court
Premjibhai Ranchhodbhai Senjaliya vs Khambha Taluka Panchayat on 26 March, 2013
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
PREMJIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SENJALIYA....Petitioner(s)V/SKHAMBHA TALUKA PANCHAYAT KHAMBHA THRO T G GARASIYA C/SCA/2936/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2936 of 2013 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2937 of 2013 ================================================================ PREMJIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SENJALIYA....Petitioner(s) Versus KHAMBHA TALUKA PANCHAYAT KHAMBHA THRO T G GARASIYA & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR PJ KANABAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MR.BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 3 MR JL HAJARE for the newly added respondents ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Date : 26/03/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. J. L. Hajare, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the newly added respondents.
In both these petitions, the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs :
12. The petitioner, therefore, humbly prays to this Hon ble Court that :-
[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;
[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned transcription of passing the resolution of No confidence motion written below the contents of resolution No.46 in the minutes book dated 07.03.2013 of Khambha Taluka Panchayat be declared to be ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, capricious, malafide, unconstitutional and not binding upon the petitioner.
The facts stated briefly are that the petitioners in both these petitions contested the general elections and came to be elected as the President and the Vice President respectively of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat, Khambha, District Amreli. On 16.2.2013, both the petitioners received a photocopy of notice of No Confidence Motion moved against them. Pursuant thereto, on 18.2.2013, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.2936 of 2013, viz., the President of the Taluka Panchayat called a meeting of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat on 7.3.2013 at 11:00 a.m. The case of the petitioners is that, on 07.03.2013, the Khambha Taluka Panchayat passed a resolution No.46 after discussing on the matter of notice of No Confidence Motion and finding it illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 70 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) read with rule 20 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as the Procedure Rules ), resolved to reject the notice of No Confidence Motion. According to the petitioners, the Members of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat, after passing the aforesaid resolution, at 02:30 p.m., resolved by majority that the notice of No Confidence Motion is accepted against both the petitioners. It is further the case of the petitioners that the writings transcribed in the Minutes Book at 02:30 p.m. below the resolution passed at 11:15 a.m. is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, malafide and unauthorized, and is liable to be quashed and set aside and that the petitioners cannot be said to have ceased to be the President and the Vice President of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat respectively and cannot be prevented from functioning as such.
This court has heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
From the facts as emerging on record, it appears that there were certain irregularities in the proceedings of the No Confidence Motion held on 7th March, 2013. Under the circumstances, the resolution of No Confidence Motion passed by the Khambha Taluka Panchayat on 7.3.2013 cannot be sustained and as such, is required to be quashed and set aside.
The learned advocates for the contesting parties, on a consensus, agree that the contesting respondents may again move a No Confidence Motion, if they so deem fit. Upon receipt of notice of No Confidence Motion, the President of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat, viz., the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.2936 of 2013 shall call a meeting as contemplated under section 70 of the Act.
The learned advocate for the contesting respondents has drawn the attention of the court to the fact that at the time when the earlier notice of No Confidence Motion was moved, the President of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat had presided over the said meeting, despite the fact that No Confidence Motion had been moved against him. Attention was invited to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 70 of the Act, which specifically provides that a President or Vice President shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him, but he shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceeding of such a meeting (including the right to vote). He has, accordingly, urged that the proceedings pursuant to any notice of no confidence moved by the contesting respondents should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Procedure Rules.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion as well as the consensus arrived at between the parties, both the petitions are partly allowed. The proceedings of the No Confidence Motion of the Khambha Taluka Panchayat moved on 7th March, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. It will be permissible for the contesting respondents to move a motion of no confidence against the President or the Vice President in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Procedure Rules. If such motion is moved, the President shall call a meeting as contemplated under the provisions of section 70 of the Act. It is made clear that such meeting convened for discussing the motion of no confidence shall not be presided either by the President or the Vice President. The respondent No.3 District Development Officer shall make necessary arrangements to ensure that such proceedings are conducted peacefully and in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
Direct Service is permitted.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) parmar* Page 5 of 5