SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 1279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Bhavesh Kamleshbhai Patel - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Municipality Administration - Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 383 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 822 of 2022
Decided on : 08-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR NIRAV C THAKKAR
For the Respondent: MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA

Headnote:(A) Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 - Section 37(1) - Disqualification of Councillor - Appellant's alleged misconduct occurred during Covid-19 when he confronted a Chief Sanitary Inspector enforcing shutdowns, which escalated into a public altercation captured on video - The conduct was deemed disgraceful and contrary to public interest, whereupon removal was ordered. (Paras 12, 17, 21)

(B) Misconduct and discharge of duties - The court emphasized that disgraceful conduct need not be confined to actions performed during the discharge of official responsibilities - The conduct of the Councillor hindered the enforcement of public health measures. (Paras 14-21)

(C) Judicial review - The removal of elected officials for misconduct must consider public interest and not be deemed solely based on language used or subjective opinions - The court upheld the legitimacy of actions taken under Section 37(1). (Paras 12-22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Municipal Councillor, intervened against the Chief Sanitary Inspector’s enforcement of a shutdown aimed at curbing Covid-19, resulting in a viral confrontation.

Findings of Court:
The appellant's actions were deemed detrimental to public health and were sufficiently grave to warrant removal from office.

Issues: The main questions involved whether the conduct constituted misconduct under the Act and the interpretation of disgraceful conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that disgraceful conduct may encompass actions beyond official duties and emphasized the expectation of public officials to adhere to public health regulations during crises.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant's arguments about actions taken. (Para 5)
3. government's defense of actions against appellant. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court examines legality of conduct. (Para 10 , 11 , 19)
5. court's reasoning on misconduct definition. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 18)
6. public interest and elected officials' responsibilities. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 21)
7. final judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal impugns the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023 in Special Civil Application No.822 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Special Civil Application.

2. The brief facts leading to filing the present appeal are as follows:-

2.1 The appellant was elected as a Councillor to the Unjha Nagarpalika. It is alleged that on 26.04.2021, the Chief Sanitary Inspector of the Nagarpalika – Mr. Jasminbhai Patel was insisting that the shop-keepers close their shops in the local market in the wake of the second wave of Covid-19. It is alleged that the shop-keepers objected to shutdown of the shops and handing over of the keys to him. In addition, the said Inspector was also imposing fine of Rs.1,000/- on the said shop keepers for violation of Covid-19 norms. The local market being in the constituency of the appellant, he received complaints from the shop-keepers about the high-handed action of said Mr. Jashwinbhai Patel and, therefore, he went to the local market. It is further alleged that the appellant there met the Chief Sanitary Inspector and questioned his actions. He asked the Chief Sanitary Inspector to stop from forcing the shop-keepers to shutdown the shops. It is the case of the appellant that initially, he had politely requested to stop the forcible shutdown of the shops. However, when the Chief Sanitary Inspector did not desist from his actions, the appellant herein raised his voice and forcibly tried to stop the Chief Sanitary Inspector from shutting the shops. This incident of confrontation with the Chief Sanitary Inspector came to recorded on a mobile phone which shows the appellant arguing and misbehaving with the Chief Sanitary Inspector in disgraceful manner. The said video became viral when posted on the Facebook wherein the appellant was also tagged and the same was also visible on the Facebook page of the appellant.

2.2 The appellant herein complained about the incident of forcible shutdown to the respondent no.2 – the Chief Officer, Unjha Nagarpalika and requested him to take immediate action against the Chief Sanitary Inspector. It is a case of the appellant that the Chief Sanitary Inspector was called for explanation on the complaint made by the appellant and that, after two days of incident, Mr. Jaswinbhai Patel – the Chief Sanitary Inspector also alleged counter allegations against the appellant herein stating that he was merely doing his job to save the public from Covid-19 in the second wave, by directing closure of shops as was unanimously decided by the Nagarpalika.

2.3 That, on the complaint of Chief Sanitary Inspector and taking note of the behaviour of the appellant herein, the respondent no.2 – the Chief Officer, Unjha Nagarpalika recommended to the respondent no.1 – the Commissioner of Municipalities to initiate appropriate action against the appellant herein under Section 37 (1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (for short “the Act, 1963”).

2.4 That, on 20.09.2021, the respondent no.1, the Commissioner of Municipalities issued a show-cause notice to the appellant calling upon him as to why action under Section 37 (1) of the Act, 1963 may not be initiated against him. Upon receipt of such show-cause notice, the appellant vide letters dated 23.09.2021 and 27.09.2021 asked for certain information so as to enable him to submit his reply to the show-cause notice. That the first hearing came to be kept on 07.10.2021 and some of the documents as so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top