Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Kalubhai Satasiya vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2039/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2039 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI KALUBHAI SATASIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI(5320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 18/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ex-Sarpanch of Mota Munjiyasar, Taluka Bagsara, District Amreli. For the irregularities committed by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, the petitioner made complaint before the authority. There were huge irregularities committed by the Sarpanch of Mota Munjiyasar Gram Panchayat inasmuch the protected trees of gram panchayat were cut without prior permission, of the Collector. Prior to cutting of protected trees permissions of Collector and State Authorities are necessary. Moreover, sale proceeds were not deposited in the Treasury of Mota Munjiyasar Gram Panchayat.
1.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that upon complaint made, Resolution No. 11 dated 24.11.2023 was passed which supports the case of petitioner. In the resolution, it is recorded that no permission was taken prior to cutting of Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 19 22:43:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2039/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined the trees and even proceeds were not deposited in the Treasury of Gram Panchayat. Despite that, till date no action has been taken against the Sarpanch of Mota Munjiyasar Gram Panchayat. Learned advocate therefore submitted that appropriate directions be issued to respondent No. 4 - Collector to initiate appropriate action.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi appeared on advance copy and submitted that the petitioner has no locus since his role is very limited to bringing the irregularities to the notice of the concerned authorities, which has been done in the present case. Learned AGP relied upon the decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 2021, wherein it is held as under:-
"3. In our opinion, the present appellant, who is only the complainant, would not have right to maintain this appeal as his role was confined for lodging the complaint before the complainant authority in appropriate manner and to assist or provide evidence before the competent authority in support of his complaint. Beyond that, the complainant would not have any role to challenge an order passed not accepting the complaint.
4. The law on the point is well settled. According to us, reference may be had to the following judgments:-
(1) In the case of Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (1977) 1 SCC 155.
(2) A decision rendered in Special Appeal No.177 of 2008, decided on 05.03.2008 of the Allahabad High Court.Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 19 22:43:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2039/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined (3) In the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407; and (4) In the case of Poonam v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779."
Learned AGP therefore submitted that the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Kaash Thakkar appeared for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and adopted the arguments made by Learned AGP. Mr. Thakkar requested to file his vakalatnama during course of the day. Registry to accept the Vakalatnama once filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
4. Upon consideration of facts on record it is noticed that the petitioner herein is ex-Sarpanch who made complaint against existing Sarpanch of the Mota Munjiyasar Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to complaint and the allegations, a report dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-F, Page No. 42) is prepared, from where it is noticed that certain irregularities committed by Sarpanch are stated in the report by the Taluka Development Officer, Bagsara. The Sarpanch is not joined as party respondent. However, noticing the report dated 22.11.2024 the State Authorities are directed to look into the report and act in accordance with law.
5. With above directions, this petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 19 22:43:07 IST 2025