Gujarat High Court
Dashrathlal Ishwarbhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5880/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5880 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5880 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
DASHRATHLAL ISHWARBHAI THAKKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KRISHNA S SHAH(13157) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 9
MS SUMAN MOTLA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NAMAN K BRAHMBHATT(11307) for the Respondent(s) No.8, 11,12,14,15.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,16,2,3,4,6,7
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 13,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Suman Motla
waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and
learned advocate Mr. Naman Brahmbhatt waives service of rule
on behalf of respondent Nos.8, 11, 12, 14 and 15.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5880/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
2. This petition is filed challenging the 'No Confidence
Motion' dated 04.04.2025, passed against the petitioner during
his tenure as Sarpanch of Tana Gram Panchayat.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for the
petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
on 22.12.2021, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Tana
Gram Panchayat for the period of five years along with other
members. From the date he elected as Sarpanch till the
resolution dated 04.04.2025 of 'No Confidence Motion', the
petitioner had performed his duties diligently and also handled
the affairs of Gram Panchayat competently. Competency
certificate of his performance is available. However, on
20.03.2025 few members of Tana Gram Panchayat gave notice
under Section 56(1) of Gram Panchayat Act, 1993 ("The Act,
1993" for short) for initiation of 'No Confidence Motion'
against the petitioner as Sarpanch. The notice dated 20.03.2025
is at Annexure E page 35. Thereafter, on 28.03.2025, an
agenda was circulated for holding the special meeting on
04.04.2025 at 11:30 am for passing of 'No Confidence Motion'
against the petitioner. The special meeting scheduled on
04.04.2025 was conducted by Up-Sarpanch and attended by all
13 members. In the said meeting voting was under taken for
passing the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5880/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
out of 13 members, 10 members voted for 'No Confidence
Motion' and 03 members voted against 'No Confidence
Motion'. Thus, in view of 2/3rd majority for 'No Confidence
Motion', against the petitioner, it was approved and passed
accordingly. Learned advocate further submitted that the said
meeting was video recorded and though the petitioner wished
to canvass against 'No Confidence Motion' and tried to
exercise its right to speak however, he was not allowed to
speak which is contrary to Section 56(3) of the Act, 1993.
Accordingly, 'No Confidence Motion', was passed against the
petitioner on 04.04.2025. Resultantly, on 07.04.2025, Taluka
Development Officer addressed a letter to Talati-cum-Mantri
informing about 'No Confidence Motion' dated 04.04.2025
against the petitioner and further directing him to hand over
the charge of Sarpanch of Tana Gram Panchayat to Up-
Sarpanch. Accordingly, the action was taken. However, since
'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the provisions of
the Act, 1993 particularly, Section 56(3) of the Act, 1993
where petitioner was not permitted to exercise his right to
speak, respondent Nos. 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 now have stated
on oath by filing their respective affidavits that petitioner
though tried was not allowed to speak. Learned advocate thus
submitted that the affidavits dated 18.04.2025 are at Annexure
G page 39 wherein respondent Nos. 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5880/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
stated that the petitioner though tried was not allowed to
speak. Therefore, 'No Confidence Motion' passed on
04.04.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside on this
ground alone.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submitted that if
a fresh meeting is permitted once again for passing the 'No
Confidence Motion' with the active participation of the
petitioner and all other members of Tana Gram Panchayat, he
would have no objection for the same. In other words, let the
procedure be followed as provided under the provisions of the
Act and accordingly, this petition may be allowed by quashing
and set aside the 'No Confidence Motion' dated 04.04.2025.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Suman Motla for respondent No.1
submitted that it is not coming out from record that petitioner
tried to speak in the special meeting dated 04.04.2025. As per
the settled legal position, the petitioner if he wanted to speak,
he has to speak and no special preference is required to be
given for participation in the said meeting. In this it is not
coming out that the petitioner tried to speak however, he was
not allowed to speak. However, she could not dispute the
affidavits filed by respondent Nos.7, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5880/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for respondent Nos. 7,
8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 submitted that it is true that though the
petitioner tried, he was not allowed to speak and the same is
contrary to the provisions of Section 56(3) of the Act, the
affidavits are filed by respondent Nos. 7,8, 11, 12, 14 and 15.
As per the affidavits, the petitioner could not participate as he
was not allowed to speak. Further if a fresh meeting is held,
after quashing earlier resolution then all members can actively
participate with regard to 'No Confidence Motion' if freshly
conducted.
6. Considering the submissions and noticing the documents
on record, it is evident that it is limited case of the petitioner
that in the special meeting, dated 04.04.2025, having agenda
of 'No Confidence Motion', against the petitioner, the
petitioner though tried, was not allowed to speak. The
grievance of the petitioner that as provided under Section 56(3)
of the Act, 1993, that though Sarpanch in a case of 'No
Confidence Motion' against him shall not be permitted to
conduct the meeting, but he shall have a right to speak or
otherwise to take part in the proceeding of such a meeting
including the right to vote. Without going much into the
merits of the matter from the affidavits of respondent Nos.7, 8,
11, 12, 14 and 15, it appears that the petitioner was as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5880/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
required under Section 56(3) of the Act, 1993 could not speak
because he was not permitted and, therefore, there is breach
of section 56(3) of the Act 1993.
7. Therefore, considering the affidavits filed and the
averments made in the affidavits which are not controverted
by the respondents, the 'No Confidence Motion' dated
04.04.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
order/letter dated 07.04.2025 passed by Taluka Development
Officer directing to hand over charge to Up-Sarpanch is also
hereby quashed and set aside. It is open for Gram Panchayat
to convene a fresh meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' after
following the due procedure as provided under the Act by
issuance of fresh notice and agenda, if they wish to do so.
8. With above directions present petition is disposed of.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
9. In view of disposal of the petition, Civil Application No.1
of 2025 would not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V./04
