Somjibhai Jatrabhao Dumada vs State of Gujarat and Others

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is Sarpanch of Village Sarigam, Taluka Umargam, District Valsad. The Petitioner is before this Court praying that,

9(B) This Hon''ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Respondent no.2-Additional Development Commissioner, Gujarat State in Appeal No. 65/2010.

The learned advocate for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30th June 2010, a copy of which is produced at page 73, Annexure ''G''. The Development Commissioner taking in to consideration the irregularities and illegalities alleged against the Sarpanch passed the order and confirmed order dated 31st March 2010 of the District Development Officer, Valsad.

It will be appropriate to refer to the Show Cause Notice which was issued to the present Petitioner alleging as many as 10 irregularities and illegalities against him. Items No. 1 to 3 were pertaining to bad quality of the road constructed during his tenure. Items No. 4 to 6 are pertaining to the bore wells, payment for which is made by the Petitioner without obtaining ''completion certificate''. So far as Item No. 6 is concerned it is specifically mentioned that the contractor did not construct ''Thadu'' (base pit) and it was alleged that it would have had cost Rs.1100/-. Thus, there is misappropriation of Rs. 1100/-.

So far as irregularity and illegality at serial No. 7 is concerned it pertains to W Cs constructed; out of 630 lavatories, receipts of 36 not received. On verification at site it was found that 10 lavatories were not constructed. Thus, it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 12,000/- (10 x 1200) was misappropriated.

So far as Item No. 8 is concerned the charge was quite serious wherein on receipt dated 5th March 2008 signature purporting to be of Shri Garuda Jivanbhai Shukkarbhai Govanbari was obtained, who had died on 21st June 2002. Thus, misappropriation of Rs. 1200 is alleged against the Petitioner. Items No. 9 and 10 are pertaining to payment by ''self'' cheque rather than ''account payee'' cheque. The amount stated is Rs. 1.42 lac. So far a the work is concerned completion certificate was given by Taluka Development Officer. But so far as Item No. 10 is concerned it is again pertaining to payment by ''bearer'' cheque and the amounts are Rs. 1.15 lac, Rs.7.08 lac and Rs. 5.5 lac. Thus, it is alleged that the Petitioner was wholly responsible for all these irregularities.

Taking into consideration the contents of the judgment and order and the nature of illegalities and irregularities alleged against the Petitioner, the Court finds that the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy. The explanation tendered by him is not found to be satisfactory at all. The judgment and order passed by the Additional Development Commissioner is found to be just and proper. No interference is called for from this Court. Hence the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.