The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has issued a sharp rebuke to the Vadodara District Collector, Anil Dhamelia, for including scandalous and irrelevant remarks about a former judicial officer in an official affidavit filed before the bench. The court, presided over by Justice Niral R. Mehta, rejected a "mechanical apology" offered by the official, describing his conduct as a significant breach of judicial decorum and a disregard for the sanctity of legal proceedings. The matter, arising from a dispute over land use permissions, has now escalated into a broader examination of administrative conduct and accountability.

The dispute originated from a petition filed by Bharvad Harishbhai Becharbhai and others, who challenged the Collector’s decision to consign their application for non-agricultural (N.A.) use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. The Collector had originally justified the refusal of the application by citing the pendency of three specific revision applications before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. However, the petitioners successfully argued that no such revisions were pending, prompting the court to demand an explanation through a formal affidavit.

In the subsequent affidavit submitted on October 6, 2026, the Collector attempted to justify his decision by detailing the historical context of the land and, crucially, making disparaging remarks regarding the professional integrity of a former In-charge Chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The affidavit contained detailed, unprompted accounts of how this former chairman had faced previous strictures from the High Court in unrelated matters. The Collector argued that these historical events were relevant to his decision-making process concerning the land in question.

Justice Mehta found this narration entirely misplaced and procedurally improper. The court held that the official’s primary task was to clarify the status of the pending revisions rather than engage in personal characterizations of judicial officers. "Once a judicial order is passed, an aggrieved party may challenge the same through the available statutory mechanism and cannot be permitted to disregard the said order merely because it was passed by an officer against whom, in some other matter, adverse observations were made," the court observed.

During the virtual proceedings held on October 23, 2026, Justice Mehta expressed profound dissatisfaction with the Collector's explanation. The court emphasized that judicial orders carry inherent sanctity, and that the Collector’s attempt to undermine past tribunal decisions based on the personal history of the presiding officer was a dangerous precedent. The court specifically noted that the Collector’s behavior suggested a disturbing lack of sensitivity toward the judicial process, questioning the professional judgment of an officer tasked with implementing the law.

The court's decision to reject the apology was further influenced by the fact that the same Collector is already embroiled in separate, ongoing contempt proceedings—specifically Miscellaneous Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 1021 of 2026—where charges were framed by a Division Bench in April 2026. The recurring nature of these issues led the court to conclude that the Collector’s actions in the present case were part of a pattern of disregarding established legal interpretations provided by the High Court in previous N.A. permission matters.

"Instead, the Collector, Vadodara, could have briefly stated that the disposal of the aforesaid Revision Applications was not reflected on the online portal," the court noted in its order. "However, he chose to narrate the history, which, prima facie , in the opinion of this Court, amounts to nothing but casting aspersions on a judicial officer."

In response to the gravity of the situation, the court directed the involvement of the state's higher administrative machinery to ensure that proper governance standards are upheld. Shri T. Natrajan, the In-charge Additional Chief Secretary of the General Administration Department, was requested to join the virtual proceedings. The court directed that a complete copy of the current case files and the records of the pending contempt proceedings be placed before the Additional Chief Secretary. This move is intended to facilitate an internal review by the disciplinary authority to determine the appropriate course of action against the Collector.

The court has now issued a Rule returnable on November 27, 2026, and formally granted leave to implead the Additional Chief Secretary of the General Administration Department as a party respondent to the petition. This ensures that the state’s executive leadership is directly apprised of the findings and conclusions reached by the court regarding the Collector's conduct.

As the matter remains part-heard, the court has signaled that the focus will now shift toward whether the administrative failings exhibited by the Collector warrant further disciplinary or legal intervention. The next hearing is expected to clarify the government’s response to the court’s observations and whether any concrete measures will be taken to address the concerns raised by the bench regarding the professional conduct of the district administration. The case stands as a pointed reminder of the boundaries between administrative discretion and the mandatory respect due to the judicial system, with the court making it clear that such personal aspersions by executive officials will not be tolerated within the framework of legal documentation.