Laljibhai Ramjibhai Makwana vs District Development Officer ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6717 Guj

      C/SCA/8520/2021                            ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8520 of 2021

==========================================================
                  LALJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA
                              Versus
     DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DISTRICT SURENDRANAGAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

                            Date : 22/06/2021
                             ORAL ORDER

1. Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Resolution dated 5.5.2021, has been passed recording motion of no confidence against the present petitioner. It is submitted that when in the meeting, the decision of motion of no confidence is discussed against the Sarpanch, the Sarpanch has a right to speak or otherwise take part in the proceedings of the no confidence motion, including the right to vote. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 5.5.2021, clearly suggests that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to speak.

2. It is submitted that in the case of Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006 (1) GLH 91, it has been held that no confidence motion has to be tabled and debated before the same can be put to vote. A Sarpanch whose position and reputation are at stake definitely has a right to speak at such a meeting and when denied such a right, prejudice would be caused to him or her. It has been further held that in a democracy when an elected Sarpanch, or as the case may be, an Up-Sarpanch is being sought to be removed through a motion of no-confidence under the

C/SCA/8520/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021

provisions of Section 56(3) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 a Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Up-Sarpanch who is facing such a no-confidence motion shall have a right to speak. This Court, has held such a requirement as mandatory. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Suvarnaben Chetanbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat, rendered in Special Civil Application No.13685 of 2014. It is submitted that the Resolution, is passed against the requirement of law.

3. Considered the submissions. Issue Notice, returnable on 6.7.2021. Direct service is permitted.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL