Gujarat High Court
Aabhuji Javanji Thakor vs Dashrathlal Ishwarbhai Thakkar on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1227 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5880 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1227 of 2025
==========================================================
AABHUJI JAVANJI THAKOR
Versus
DASHRATHLAL ISHWARBHAI THAKKAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NAMAN K BRAHMBHATT(11307) for the Respondent(s) No.
11,12,14,15,9
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
2. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside and quashing the No-confidence motion dated 04.04.2025 passed against the original petitioner/ respondent no. 1 herein. Pertinent is to note that Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the No-confidence motion dated 04.04.2025 has been carried out after issuance of notice dated 20.03.2025 and circulation of Agenda upon the members of the Gram Panchayat on 28.03.2025. There was no dispute before the Writ Court about the procedure adopted for moving the No-confidence motion on 04.04.2025. There is no challenge to the notice nor any assertion has been made with regard to the agenda not being circulated properly for holding the Special meeting on 04.04.2025 for passing of No-confidence motion against the petitioner.
3. Also, there is no challenge to the Special meeting held on 04.04.2025, which was conducted by the Up-Sarpanch namely the appellant herein and attended by all 13 members of the Gram Panchayat. It is an admitted fact of the matter that out of 13 members, participated in the meeting, 10 members voted for No-confidence motion and 3 members voted against the No-confidence motion. There is also no dispute about the fact that the original petitioner namely the Sarpanch against whom the No-confidence motion was moved, had also participated in the Special meeting and had exercised his right to vote against the No-confidence motion. Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
4. The only ground of challenge pressed by the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the No-confidence motion was contrary to the provisions of Section 56 (3) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1993 (for short "the Act, 1993"), inasmuch as, the petitioner had a statutory right to speak in the meeting, which was denied. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner had been denied his right to speak and had he been able to do so through his persuasive power or logical arguments, he could have prevailed upon some of the members present during the meeting, who could have changed their minds and be convinced to oppose the No-confidence motion.
5. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before a learned Singe Judge was that before the No-confidence motion was put to vote, the petitioner could exercise his statutory right to address the meeting and since the said right, being mandatory in nature, has been denied, the No-confidence motion cannot be sustained. Serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with the denial of the said right.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
6. One of the ground taken in the writ petition is that since the first step of permitting the petitioner to speak during the meeting has not been followed, all the consequential steps of putting the motion to vote, counting of votes and adoption of motion, thereafter, would automatically fail being invalid or having been no legal effect.
7. Taking into consideration all these contentions made in the writ petition, pertinent is to note that on a pointed query made by the Court as to when for the first time, the petitioner has raised the issue with regard to denial of his right to speak in the meeting prior to carrying out the No- confidence motion, no material from the record could be placed before us to substantiate that the petitioner raised any such issue at the relevant point of time, i.e. when the No- confidence motion was signed and carried out by the majority. There is no contemporaneous document substantiating the claim of the petitioner that he was not allowed to speak prior to the motion of No-confidence was carried out against him. It is pertinent to note that the issue of violation of Section 56 (3) of the Act, 1993 has been raised, for the first time, in the writ petition which was filed Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined after almost 15 days of passing of the No-confidence motion.
8. Further, in order to support his stand taken in the writ petition, the petitioner had appended affidavits of six members, of different dates, who had participated in the Special meeting stating that the petitioner was not allowed to speak. These affidavits are of dated 17/18.04.2025. By means of an additional affidavit dated 29.04.2025, affidavit of one more member, sworn on 27.04.2025, has been filed to assert that they are evidence of the fact that the petitioner was not allowed to speak in the meeting for carrying out the No-confidence motion.
9. A bare perusal of these affidavits indicates that the averments therein are verbatim the same. Even as per the statement made in the said affidavits, the petitioner against whom the No-confidence motion was carried out had participated in the meeting.
10. As noted hereinbefore, out of 13 members in total, who were present and voted in the Special meeting held on 04.04.2025, 10 members have voted for No-confidence motion and only 3 including the petitioner had voted against Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the No-confidence motion.
11. It, thus, seems to us that even those members of the Gram Panchayat who had voted against the No-confidence motion had filed affidavits in favour of the petitioner stating that though the petitioner was present in the meeting but he was not allowed to speak. This statement of such persons who have consciously voted in the meeting conducted on 04.04.2025, is nothing but an afterthought.
12. Even otherwise, none of the members who have voted against the No-confidence motion and filed affidavit in favour of the petitioner, would state that they were coerced, mislead or misguided by the Up-Sarpanch who had presided over the meeting, to vote for No-confidence motion, carried out against the petitioner.
13. No objections have been taken by any of the members of the Gram Panchayat who had participated in the meeting at the relevant point of time about the procedure adopted in conducting the meeting. No such grounds have been taken in the writ petition.
14. The filing of the writ petition with the contention that Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the petitioner was denied his right to speak in violation of Section 56 (3) of the Act, 1993, is nothing but an act of the petitioner to frustrate the democratic process of expression of No-confidence against the elected Sarpanch by the majority members of the Gram Panchayat.
15. No plausible grounds could be raised apart from the violation of Section 56 (3) of the Act, 1993 for no allowing the petitioner to speak, to challenge the No-confidence motion passed on 04.04.2025 by the majority of the members of the Gram Panchayat.
16. Even otherwise, Section 56 (3) of the Act, 1993 would provides that the Sarpanch or the Up-sarpanch against whom No-confidence motion is to be discussed, shall not be permitted to preside over the meeting, but he shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take participate in the proceedings of such a meeting including the right to vote. In the present case the petitioner had participated in the meeting and exercised his right to vote. No objection was recorded by him at the relevant point of time to assert violation of Section 56 (3) of the Act, 1993. In absence of any such cogent or contemporaneous material, it was difficult for Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the Writ Court, within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to make any factual inquiry to ascertain the fact, not recorded during the course of the proceedings.
17. Reliance placed on the decisions of this Court are of no help, to the respondent:-
i. Judgment and order dated 23.11.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12098 of 2004 in the case of Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel V/s. State of Gujarat;
ii. Order dated 17.07.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 787 of 2009 in the case of Thakore Bhalusangji Mansangji V/s. State of Gujarat;
iii. Judgment and order dated 27.07.2011 passed in Civil Misc.Application No. 1737 of 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2593 of 2010 Mahendrabhai Chanabhai Kandoliya V/s. Vakatar Bhagvanbhai Devabhai;
iv. Judgement and order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1087 of 2019 in the case of Hitendrasih Pravinsinh Zala V/s. Taluka Vikas Adhikari;
18. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1227/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined learned Single Judge has committed an error in interfering and quashing or setting aside the No-confidence motion, merely on the affidavits of few of the members, who though, had voted for No-confidence motion but tried to frustrate the same, by filing affidavits in favour of the petitioner at a subsequent point of time before the Writ Court.
19. In view of the above, while setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
20. After the judgment was dictated in an open Court, the learned counsel for the original petitioner - the respondent no. 1 herein has made a prayer to grant stay of this order, which is hereby rejected in view of the reasoning given hereinabove and the fact that the original petitioner is not in- charge, atleast, till the judgment impugned has been passed by the Writ Court.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:45:08 IST 2025