Gujarat High Court
Kamuben Ganpatbhai Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2020
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
C/SCA/8501/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8501 of 2020
==========================================================
KAMUBEN GANPATBHAI GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA, AGP for the Respondent-State.
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 24/09/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner was a Sarpanch of Suva Gram Panchayat, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch. A no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner removing her as Sarpanch which is assailed in this petition principally on two grounds: (i) that the notice of no confidence motion itself was illegal as it did not comply with Section 56(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, (for short "the Act") read with Rule 20(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Procedure Rules inasmuch as it was not addressed to the Talati-cum-Mantri being the Secretary of the panchayat as required by law but it was addressed to the Taluka Development Officer, (ii) the opportunity to speak available to the petitioner in terms of Section 56(3) of the Act was denied to her even as her application requesting the postponement of the meeting was not acceded to. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Premjibhai Ranchhodbhai Senjaliya v. Khambhat Taluka [ 2016 (2) GLH 241; Suvarnaben Chetanbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat [ 2014(5) GLR 4277 ] and Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and others [ 2006(1) GLH 91].
2. Learned counsel Mr. H.S.Munshaw has invited attention of this court to the decision in PARSHOTTAMBHAI TALSIBHAI CHHANIYARA v. TALUKA VIKAS ADHIKARI TALUKA PANCHAYAT MANDAL in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1135 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 8059 of 2018 with Civil Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 25 02:52:43 IST 2020 C/SCA/8501/2020 ORDER Application No. 1 of 2018 and submitted that both the issues raised by the petitioner are answered against the petitioner in the said case. He has drawn attention of this court to the relevant correspondence between the TDO and Talati-cum-Mantri available on the record of the case He would urge for the dismissal of the petition.
3. On consideration of the rival submissions as also the record of the case, it would appear that motion for no confidence signed by seven members of the panchayat was initiated and forwarded to the TDO, Taluka Panchayat Vagra with a copy marked to Sarpanch/Talati-cum-Mantri, Gram Panchayat Suva on 09.06.2020. This motion then came to be forwarded to the Talati-cum-Mantri by Taluka Development Officer on 11.06.2020. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was requested to call for the meeting as required by law. She, however, defended herself instead of calling the meeting and on her failure, Section 56(5)(b) was invoked and the competent authority i.e. TDO in the present case convened the meeting. The petitioner was served with the agenda and before the meeting could be held, she made a written request to postpone it on several grounds. The meeting was, however, held; the petitioner was not present, and after waiting for 15 minutes with a hope that the petitioner would remain present, the impugned resolution supported by required majority expressing the no confidence motion in the petitioner came to be passed.
4. Apropos the first contention, this court is of the opinion that notice of no confidence was legally initiated inasmuch as; substantial requirements of the motion being signed by the required number of members of the panchayat and being addressed to Talati-cum-Mantri as required by Rule 20 of the Procedure Rules have been complied with. In this context, a reference may be made to the case of Parshottam Talsibhai Chhaniyara (supra) wherein, under the identical situation the procedure for initiation of the motion of no confidence was held to be valid. No merits is therefore found in the first contention of the petitioner.
5. So far as the second contention is concerned, there lies a misconception of law with the petitioner as if Section 56(3) of the Act can be used for the purpose of postponement of the meeting. That is not the contemplation in the provision. The Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 25 02:52:43 IST 2020 C/SCA/8501/2020 ORDER provision intends to fetter the right of the Sarpanch/Upsarpanch to preside over the meeting; at the same time, it saves the right of Sarpanch/Upsarpanch to speak or to take part in the proceedings of the meeting, including the right to vote. The right under sub-sec.(3) of Section 56 of the Act would be realised only when the Sarpanch/Upsarpanch remains present in the meeting. The provision does not confer a right upon the Sarpanch/Upsarpanch to seek postponement of the meeting. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner (Premjibhai Ranchhodbhai Senjaliya, Suvarnaben Chetanbhai Raval and Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel) ( all supra) deal with altogether to a different position. The cases did not address the issue of Sarpanch asking for postponement of the motion, and therefore, the ratio laid down therein cannot be applied to the facts of the case.
6. On overall consideration of the case, this court does not find any merit in the petition; the petition fails and is dismissed.
7. Civil Application does not survive, hence dismissed.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J) MOHMMEDSHAHID/SYED/NIRU Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 25 02:52:43 IST 2020