AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Chhaya
Heard Mr. A.H. Chhoriya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has inter alia challenged the order dated 24th August, 2012 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Patdi, District-
Surendranagar whereby the petitioner, who was elected as a Sarpanch, has been declared to be disqualified as according to the Authority, the
petitioner stands disqualified as mentioned in the u/s 30 of the Panchayats Act, 1993.
As provided u/s 32(2) of the Act, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of filing Appeal before the State Government
within a period of one month.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has declared before this Hon''ble Court that the order impugned dated 24th August, 2012 has been
received by the petitioner on 30th August, 2012 and hence, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy available as stated aforesaid. In
addition to this, considering the averments made in the petition, records require appreciation of evidence and hence, this petition is not entertained
reserving liberty of the petitioner to file Appeal as provided u/s 32(2) of the Act before the State Government.
If any such Appeal is filed, the same shall be decided by the State Government on its own merits without being influenced by the present order
as the present petition is not entertained only on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy. This Court has not examined the matter
on merits. If any such Appeal is filed along with an application for stay, the State Government shall give priority to the application for stay and shall
pass necessary orders within a period of one week from the date of registration of such Appeal. With this observations and clarifications, present
petition stands disposed of.