PRABHODHRAI DHIRAJRAM NAYAK Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SURAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
PRABHODHRAI DHIRAJRAM NAYAK
District Panchayat Surat
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner was the Chairman of Bardoli Nagar Panchayats District Surat and he was served with a notice under sec. 49 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 That notice was signed by the Secretary Executive Committee of the District Panchayat Surat who was also District Development Officer District Panchayat Surat. The petitioner filed a reply. Thereafter it appears that the Executive Committee of the Surat District Panchayat met on 27-7-1982 where the petitioner remained present with his Advocate Shri M. K. Hakim. It appears that there were questions and answers between the Associate Member Shri C. D. Patel and the petitioner. It appears that some questions were replied by the petitioner and some were replied by his Advocate. Thereafter the District Panchayat Surat passed a Resolution removing the petitioner from the Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Bardoli and also from the membership of the Bardoli Nagar Panchayat. This was on the basis that the Executive Committee of the Surat District Panchayat came to the conclusion that allegations Nos. 1 to 9 were proved and therefore it was established that the petitioner had abused his powers as contemplated by sec. 49(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 An appeal was preferred to the competent authority who was Additional Development Commissioner Gujarat State and that appeal was partly allowed and the petitioner was removed as the Chairman of the Bardoli Nagar Panchayat. However he was continued as Member of the Bardoli Nagar Panchayat. That was done on 30/09/1982. Thereafter this petition is filed in this Court praying that the orders passed by the District Panchayat Surat and the Additional Development Commissioner who are joined as respondents Nos. 1 and 3 may be set aside and quashed.
(2.) The contention as to whether the Secretary Executive Committee who happened to be also the District Development Officer of the Surat District Panchayat had the authority to issue the notice under sec. 49 or as to whether the Executive Committee of the District Panchayat Surat was the competent authority to pass the Resolution was not pressed in view of the Notification issued by the State Government appointing these persons to be the competent authority to act under sec. 49 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961
(3.) The real questions which were pressed were twofold. Firstly rules of natural justice were not complied with in the sense that the papers of preliminary enquiry on the basis of which notice came to be issued were not supplied to the petitioner. And the second point which was urged was that all the allegations 1 to 9 did not disclose that there was any abuse of authority as contemplated under sec. 49 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.