Gujarat High Court
Baldevbhai Maganbhai Patel vs Mukeshbhai Aatmaram Patel on 10 February, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/50/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 50 of 2021
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10522 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 50 of 2021
==========================================================
BALDEVBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL
Versus
MUKESHBHAI AATMARAM PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PERCY KAVINA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, with MS NEHA M
KAYASTHA(7609) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR NIMESH M PATEL(6780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 10/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. We have heard Shri Percy Kavina, learned seniour
counsel, assisted by Ms. Neha Kayastha, learned counsel for
the appellant, and Shri Vikas Nair and Mr. Nimesh Patel,
learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an intra Court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal)
assailing the correctness of the judgment of learned Single
Judge, whereby learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed
by the Sarpanch (respondent No.1 herein) and quashed the
orders passed against the Sarpanch removing him under the
provisions of Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act,
C/LPA/50/2021 ORDER
1993. The present appellant happened to be the complainant,
on whose complaint, the proceedings have been initiated and
the orders for removal were passed. Learned Single Judge
having examined the same and having held that the orders
were bad in law, quashed the same.
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.
(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.
5. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal on the ground of
the appellant having no locus to maintain the appeal.
Consequently, the connected Civil Application also stands
DISPOSED OF.
C/LPA/50/2021 ORDER
6. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits
of the appeal and we have dismissed the same only on the
ground of locus.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
OMKAR
