Gujarat High Court
Chaturji Ramaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat & on 15 April, 2009
SCA/4/2009 1/3 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4 of 2009
=====================================================
CHATURJI RAMAJI THAKOR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance :
MR JAPAN DAVE FOR MR MP SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,MS. KRUTI M SHAH
for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MAITHILI MEHTA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR RAJESH CHAUHAN FOR MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2,
=====================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date : 15/04/2009
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Japan Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. It was submitted that on bare reading of provisions of Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, none of the defaults stipulated by the said provision, are shown to have been made out by the respondent Authority and hence, the order for removing the petitioner from the post of Up-
Sarpanch of Dalod Grampanchayat and order of the Revisional Authority confirming the said order of SCA/4/2009 2/3 ORDER
removal, are bad in law. The learned advocate read extensively from the order of the respondent Authorities in support of the contentions raised.
2. On behalf of the respondent - Panchayat, learned advocate extensively read from the order of Taluka Development Officer and submitted that there was a default committed by the petitioner and the petitioner had rightly been removed from the post of Up-Sanrpanch.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State Government also submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are of a serious nature and the petitioner had not complied with the relevant requirements of obtaining prior permission of the competent Authority.
4. Having heard the learned advocates, it is not possible, at least prima facie, to accept the stand of respondents. No provision of law has been pointed out, which obliged the petitioner to obtain such a prior permission. To the contrary, record reveals, before disposing of the debris of the pulled down SCA/4/2009 3/3 ORDER building of the Grampanchyat, the petitioner had obtained the upset price from the Additional Chief Engineer of Mandal.
5. In the circumstances, the matter requires consideration. Hence, RULE. Ad interim relief in terms of para 6(d).
(D.A. MEHTA, J.) ynvyas