The Development Commissioner must follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing, and consult the District Panchayat before passing an order superseding a Gram Panchayat.

ORDER :

J.N. Bhatt, J.

The sole question in focus in this petition is as to whether the order superseding Kotharia Gram Panchayat passed on 9-7-1993 by the Development Commissioner, Gujarat State, respondent No. 1, is legal and valid or not.

2. Firstly, the spectrum of relevant factual scenario leading to rise of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be enumerated at this juncture. Kotharia Gram Panchayat's election lastly came to be held in the month of August 1991 where in 12 members and one Sarpanch of the said gram panchayat came to be elected. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of the said gram panchayat. A notice dated 31-5-1993 was served on the said panchayat by respondent No. 1 (Commissioner) exercising powers under Section 297 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ('the Panchayats Act' for short) calling upon the panchayat to show cause as to why the panchayat should not be dissolved as the said panchayat is incompetent to perform the duties imposed on it.

3. The petitioner as Sarpanch responded to the said show cause notice on 15-6-1993 inter alia pointing out that the show cause notice is too vague and ambiguous and that the gram panchayat has not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting dissolution or supersession thereof. It was specifically denied that the gram panchayat has not made any persistent default in performance of its duties. The charges mentioned in the show cause notice which is produced at annexure A to the petition, were replied and the reply is produced at annexure B. Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated July 9, 1993 superseding the said gram panchayat for a period; of one year and accordingly, a notification in the official gazette was published on July 19, 1993. The Administrator came to be appointed for the said panchayat by the Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 297(4) of the Panchayat Act. Therefore, the petitioner who is the sarpanch of the Kotharia Gram Panchayat has knocked the doors of this Court for justice.

4. The respondents have appeared and resisted the petition by filing a common affidavit-in-reply inter alia contending that the impugned order of super-session for a period of one year of the Kotharia gram panchayat is legal, valid and justified. The averments made in the petition are controverted. It is contended that the show cause notice is also legal and there is no vagueness or ambiguity. Thus, the impugned order is defended.

5. Before the merits of this petition are examined in greater detail, the material undisputed aspects with their dates may be mentioned:

6. Mr. Padival, learned advocate for the petitioner has questioned the impugned order on the following grounds:

1. That it suffers from non-application of mind.

2. That it suffers from non-observance of principles of natural justice.

3. That the impugned order is not a speaking order.

7. The aforesaid grounds of attack on the impugned order are countenanced by Mr. Mehta, learned Asstt. Government Pleader. He has fully supported the impugned order contending that there is no violation of principles of natural justice or any statutory provisions. According to his contention, the impugned order is reasonable, just and valid.

8. The aforesaid three grounds of attack are interconnected and interwoven. Therefore, it would be expedient to discuss them simultaneously. The contention that some of the grounds in the show cause notice served upon the petitioner under Section 297 of the Panchayats Act are vague and ambiguous appears to be justified. The show cause notice dated May 31, 1993 produced at annexure A enumerates as many as 14