Point of Law : High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned orders dated 30.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Development Commissioner, Gujarat State in Appeal No. 11 of 2019 as well as order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the District Development Officer in exercise of powers under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred as to the "Act").

2. The case in brief projected before the Court is that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Village Laval and on the basis of one anonymous application given to the Taluka Development Officer, Vaso by supporter of sitting member of Legislative Assembly from Matar Constituency i.e. Mr.Kesrisinh Solanki who is belonging to Bharatiya Janta Party. On the basis of such a fake and general application, the Taluka Development Officer on three different dates submitted reports to the District Development Officer on 12.07.2018, 18.08.2018 and 13.09.2018 respectively and on the basis of such reports, the District Development Officer called upon the petitioner to explain by issuance of show-cause notice in purported exercise of powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 57 of the Act as to why the petitioner should not be removed as a Sarpanch of the village for the alleged negligence in performance of duties. The said show-cause notice dated 08.10.2018 came to be replayed and subsequently, an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner on 25.10.2018 which was actually heard later on 26.02.2019 and without proper application of mind, the District Development Officer passed an order on 26.02.2019 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the village.

3. It is this order dated 26.02.2019 is made the subject matter of Appeal under Sub-Section (3) of Section 57 of the Act before the Additional Development Commissioner alongwith an application for submitted on 28.02.2019. According to the petitioner, initially despite request, no order was passed but thereafter, on 15.05.2019, the stay application came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file Special Civil Application No.10008 of 2019 before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated 10.07.2019 with a direction that pending Appeal before the Additional Development Commissioner be decided as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.

4. The case of the petitioner is that though the appeal was required to be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of four months after the lapse of outer period on 30.12.2019, an appeal came to be decided by the Additional Development Commissioner who by judgment and order was pleased to dismiss the Appeal. The same having been communicated and received by the petitioner only on 03.01.2020. Therefore, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by, the present petition is brought before the Court.

5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to issue notice vide order dated 10.02.2020 and thereafter, after granting an opportunity to the other side to submit the reply, the petition with aforesaid background came up for consideration today before this Court.

6. Mr.Aum M. Kotwal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the authority is quite contrary to the material on record and without consideration of the issues raised before it and as such, an order being perverse to the record, the same deserves to be quashed. It has further been contended that on account of alleged act, it cannot be said that there is any negligence in performing duty by the petitioner A being a Sarpanch. In fact, there is no financial loss caused to the Panchayat which may permit the authority to exercise powers under Section 57 of the Act. According to Mr.Kotwal, learned advocate, the guidelines which have been issued by the State authority for seeking permission for cutting of tre