Solanki Ramaji Madhaji vs District Development Officer

A.G.Uraizee, J

Heard Mr. Dharmesh C. Gurjar, learned advocate for the petitioner.

Following substantive prayers are made in this petition:

(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or writ in the nature of writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the respondent - District Development Officer and the order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the respondent - Taluka Development Officer and thereby direct the respondent authorities to remove the respondent No.3 from the post of Sarpanch of Zabadiya Gram Panchayat;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to restrain the respondent No.3 from discharging his duty as Sarpanch of Zabadiya Gram Panchayat.

Facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that:

3.1 The petitioner made an application dated 26.12.2018 to respondent No.2 - Taluka Development Officer, Deesa to remove the respondent No.3 from the post of Sarpanch as he is having 3 children, which fact he has suppressed, while contesting the election of the Panchayat. The respondent No.2 after conducting thorough inquiry found that the petitioner is having only one living child, therefore, dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.2018. The petitioner has challenged the decision of respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 by filing Appeal under Section 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 ("the Act" for short). The respondent No.1 also after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein and after perusing the record, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner has preferred present petition.

The gist of the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 makes it abundantly clear that the respondent No.2 had two children Pujaben Jabbarsing, who was born on 28.12.2010 and one Babiben, who was born on 21.02.2018 and later on named her as Hakiben. Said Hakiben, who was born on 21.02.2018, passed away on 12.12.2018, around 10 months after her birth. Therefore, the petitioner is found having only one living child Pujaben. Other child named Bhavsing, who according to the petitioner, is a child of respondent No.3, is found to be adopted child of his mother. The respondent No.2 has recorded this finding of fact on the basis of affidavits of the wife and mother of respondent No.2 and after conducting thorough inquiry. The respondent No.1, while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner, has thoroughly examined the record and has found that the respondent No.3 has only one living child.

Submission of Mr. Gurjar, learned advocate for the petitioner that in fact, Bhavsing is son of the petitioner as he has manipulated his birth certificate inasmuch as in 1999 and thereafter, Bhavsing is said to have born on 07.10.2013, which is not possible. Be that as it may when respondent No.2 after thorough inquiry has found that the said Bhavsing is adopted son of the mother of the respondent No.3, in absence of any other material, it is not possible to take view contrary to the view taken by the Authorities below. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed at threshold.