Point of Law: It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Haribhai J. Patel for the petitioner, learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi assisted by learned advocate Ms. Mini M. Nair for the applicant – original respondent no.3 and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent nos.1 and 2 – State through video conference.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Nair waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.3 and learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

3. Having regard to the controversy, which arises in this petition in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is takenup for final hearing instead of deciding the application for vacating interim relief filed by the respondent no.3 Unjha Municipality.

4. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) To admit this petition.

(B) To issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus by way of quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 27/11/2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Municipalities, in muni/S.R. no.15/2020 (annex at annexure-A) to this Appeal in the interest of justice.

(C) To stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 27/11/2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Municipalities in muni/S.R. no.15/2020 (annexed at annexure-A) to this petition) during the pendency of admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition by way of an interim relief in the interest of justice.

(D) Be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. At the outset the learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Haribhai Patel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner of Administration of Municipalities respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order dated 27th November, 2020 without assigning any cogent reason dealing with the submissions made by the petitioner. It was submitted by Mr. Parikh that only conclusive findings are recorded rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on merits and the authority has failed to give any reason for removing the petitioner as member of the respondent no.3 Municipality under Section 37(1) of the Gujarat Municipality Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act, 1963’).

6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as member of the respondent no.3 Municipality in the year 2015. The petitioner was partner of M/s. Jay Vijay Construction, who purchased the property situated at Survey no.6590 in Town Planning Scheme no.1 in Unjha and started commercial construction upon the said property. According to the petitioner, the said partnership firm applied for development permission before the respondent no.3 on 11th July, 2019, which was rejected on 27th September, 2019.

7. According to the petitioner, on the basis of application given by the third party and upon the letter of the Chief Officer of the respondent no.2, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner under Section 37 of the Act, 1963 on the ground that by way of putting unauthorized construction on the land in question without taking permission of change of use, the petitioner has misused the post held by him as Councilor of the respondent no.3 – Municipality.

8. This Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) passed the following order on 22nd December, 2020.

“Notice returnable on 4th February, 2021. Till the next date of hearing, impugned order is stayed.”

9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Parikh submitted that the impugned order is contrary to what the Supreme Court has held in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Ors., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407, wherein it is held as under with regard to the giving a reasone