The decision emphasized the need for grave and exceptional circumstances to justify removal under Section 37 of the Act, and highlighted the importance of collective responsibility for decisions made by councillors. It also underscored the requirement for proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and the prohibition of differential treatment and biased decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by four petitioners who are the members of Dakor Municipality challenging the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the respondent no.1- Commissioner, Municipalities, whereby the respondent no.1 has removed the petitioners as councillors of Dakor Municipality in purported exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners filed a draft amendment for adding certain grounds and prayer clause, which was granted by order of this Court and the same was carried out.

2. Rule. Respective learned advocates waive service of notice of rule for respective parties.

3. Notice was issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 9.12.2021. Thereafter, a detailed order was passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 7.2.2022 allowing the draft amendment sought for. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and when the matter is listed before this Court, it was partly heard on 21.9.2022 and finally heard today.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition, as mentioned in the petition, are such that the petitioners were elected councillors of Dakor Municipality in the elections held on 19.2.2018 and a Executive Committee was formed which consisted of petitioners and other five members. The said Executive Committee passed various resolutions and all of them were referred by the Chief Officer to Regional Commissioner of Municipality for suspending the resolution in exercise of powers under Section 258 of the Act. Each of the resolutions were taken in appeal and have been suspended or the same have been considered by the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities and general body was directed to decide on the said issue. All the resolutions passed by the Executive Committee were approved by the general body. It is stated that even otherwise, none of the said resolutions have been implemented. It is stated that either the resolutions have been suspended by the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities or they have not been implemented at all.

4.1 It is further stated that inspite of above, the respondent no.1-Commissioner, Municipalities issued show cause notice dated 25.1.2021 to the petitioners and other five members of the Executive Committee. The respondent no.2 herein who was the complainant applied for being joined as party respondent in the present proceedings under Section 37 of the Act. The respondent no.2 joined as party in the proceedings and filed reply.

4.2 It is further stated that the petitioner no.1 filed preliminary reply and on the basis of the same, the respondent no.1 issued notice dated 13.7.2021 to all the elected members under Section 37 of the Act. The five members other than the petitioners filed reply in the proceedings under Section 37 stating that the resolutions passed by the Executive Committee were passed without the consent of the said members and they were not aware of the said resolution. The petitioners nos.2 to 4 appeared through the advocate. It is submitted that on 26.8.2021 the adjournment was granted and the authorities informed that the petitioners would be made aware about the next date of hearing. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioners did not hear anything about the proceedings and to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, they received the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 removing the petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act and the proceedings against the rest of the five members were dropped. Hence, this petition is filed.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai for the petitioners, learned senior advocate Mr.H.M.Parikh for learned advocate Mr.Haribhai Patel for respondent no.2, learned AGP Ms.Jyoti Bhatt for respondent no.3 and learned advocate Mr.Chitrajeet Upadhyay for learned advocate Mr.Naman Brahmbhatt for respondent no.4.

5.1 Learned advocate