The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch was illegal and beyond the scope of Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged the orders impugned :- (i) dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Additional Development Commissioner, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.67 of 2022 and (ii) dated 01.10.2021 passed by the District Development Officer, Panchmahalas under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, whereby the petitioner is removed from the post of Sarpanch.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Rule. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents.

3.1 Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are illegal, against the facts on record and without giving proper opportunity of defending the case and therefore, the same are required to be quashed and set aside.

3.2 She has further submitted that pursuant to the first show-cause notice dated 30.07.2021 issued by the District Development Officer, the petitioner has explained each and every allegations made in the said notice by his reply dated 09.08.2021 along with documentary evidence and the authority has withdrawn the said notice on the same day.

3.3 She has also submitted that the authority has issued another show-cause notice dated 13.09.2021 by making further serious allegations against the petitioner. She has submitted that no whisper of any allegations of the second show-cause notice, was there in the first show-cause notice.

3.4 She has submitted that the authority has, on one hand in the first show-cause notice, given finding that the petitioner has completed all the works within the expenditures provided and he has maintained all registers, voucher files, whereas on the other hand in the second show-cause notice, the very authority has given contrary reasons, which speaks volume about mala fide intention on the part of the authority itself. She has submitted that the entire proceedings are initiated under the political pressure as the wife of the present petition has contested the election as Apaksh candidate and therefore, keeping vengeance upon him and to bring pressure for withdrawal of the candidature of the wife of the petitioner, the entire proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner by the Authorities.

3.5 She has submitted that one of the grounds in show-cause notice is not connected with tenure of the petitioner in his office. She has submitted that this is not a case of financial loss to the Panchayat, as alleged by the Authorities in the show-cause notice, as the petitioner has produced all the documents along with bank statement to show that not a single penny of Panchayat funds has been misappropriated by the petitioner. She has submitted that it is an abuse of powers by the Authorities and therefore, the order removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch is beyond the scope of Section 57(1) of the Act.

3.6 In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the following judgments :

(i) AIR 2011 Gujarat 159 – Vakatar Bhagvanjibhai Devabhai versus Additional Development Commissione (Paras : 8 to 14)

(ii) 2011 (4) GLR 3130 – Raysangbhai Ranchhodbhai Thakor versus State of Gujarat (Paras : 10 to 15)

(iii) Special Civil Application No.7748 of 2021 – Ashokbhai Kanubhai Mangroliya versus State of Gujarat (Para : 6)

(iv) (2000) 2 GLR 222 – Kamlaben Rohitbhai Patel versus Additional Development Commissioner (Paras : 6 & 9)

(v) 2002 (3) GLH 739 – Kanakbhai Narsangbhai Padhar versus State of Gujarat (Paras : 7 and 10)

(vi) 2013 (2) GLR 1257 – Dashrathlal Ishwarlal Patel versus State of Gujarat (Paras : 15 to 33)

(vii) 2009 (3) GLR 2167 – Dipakbhai Mohanbhai Patel versus K.S. Patel (Paras : 34 & 35)

(viii) 1996 (2) GLR 2 – Laladhar Pragji versus State of Gujarat (Paras : 4 to 6)

(ix) 1996 (2) GLR 349 – Udaysinh Shankersinh Zala versus S.D. Vadera, Additional Development Commissioner (Para : 3)

(x) 2000 (1) GLR 32 – Harsukhbhai Gordhanbhai Hadvani versus State of Gujarat (Para : 5)

3.7 She has submitted that this petition