Decided in Favour of :
Respondent
Petition Dismissed

Abhilasha Kumari, J.—This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 06.10.2007 (Annexure “B”) passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the proceedings against the Respondent No. 3 (Sarpanch) have been withdrawn and, further to quash and set aside the order dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure “C”) rendered by the Respondent No. l, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been returned.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto are, that the petitioner is a resident of village Siludi, Tal. Valia, District : Bharuch, The Respondent No. 3 is the Sarpanch of the Siludi Gram Panchayat. The said respondent was elected as Sarpanch in the year 2002 and his term of office was to end on 17.01.2007. Thereafter, the election for the office of Sarpanch, for the period 2007 to 2012 was held in December, 2006 wherein, the Respondent No. 3 contested the election for office of Sarpanch and was declared elected on 12.12.2006.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.12.2006, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held and Resolution No. 4 was passed, whereby seven properties of persons belonging to the Adivasi community, including the property of the petitioner, came to be mutated in the name of one Shri Panch Bhaya, a non Adivasi person, on the basis of a writing made on stamp papers worth R.10 and Rs. 20/-. It is averred that the Respondent No. 3 transferred the property of the petitioner and his brother to Shri. Panch Bhaya, on the basis of the writing made on a stamp paper of Rs. l0/-, of the year 1985. The grievance of the petitioner is that before effecting the mutation entry to this effect in the revenue records, the petitioner was not informed or given an opportunity of being heard.

The averments in the petition disclose that thereafter, the petitioner filed an. application dated 14.07.2007 against the Respondent No. 3 (Sarpanch) before the Respondent No. 2 (District Development Officer), who initiated proceedings for removal against the Respondent No. 3, under the provisions of Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (“The Panchayats Act” for short). On the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 22.08.2007 was issued to the Respondent No. 3. An inquiry was conducted by the Taluka Development Officer, who also recorded the statements of various persons. Pursuant to the notice issued to the Respondent No. 3, he was given an opportunity of hearing by the Respondent No. 2. The. Respondent No. 3 was heard and the report of the Taluka Development Officer was considered by the Respondent No. 2, who found that the charges against the Respondent No. 3 related to his previous term of office, and, therefore, the notice was withdrawn and the proceedings dropped. While withdrawing the notice under Section 57(1) of the Panchayats Act, the Respondent No. 2 kept open the option of taking action against the Respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Section 57(2) of the Panchayats Act.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner approached the State Government by filing an appeal under Section 57(3) of the Panchayats Act. The appeal of the petitioner has been returned by Respondent No. l vide order dated 07.12.2007, on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable, as the petitioner is not an aggrieved party, as contemplated by the provisions of Sections 57(1) and 57(2) of the Panchayats Act and is a third party, and also because the final decision in respect of the proceedings against Respondent No. 3 is still to be taken. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned communication of the Additional Development Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) dated 07.12.2007, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Mr. M.M. Saiyed learned Coun