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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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