Gujarat HC Stays election in Gram Panchayat, directs District Development Officer to cooperate with the removal of Sarpanch

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

In the case of Prafulbhai Balwantbhai Rathod vs District Development Officer, the brief facts state that the Petitioner, who was working as Sarpanch of Atodara Grampanchayat, in the Dist. Surat, Gujarat, was removed by the Respondent by an order in 2019. He has challenged his removal before the Development Commissioner of State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar by filing an Appeal (Revision Application) in 2019 along with a stay application. The Appellate Authority has neither decided the stay application nor the main revision application. In the meantime, Respondent 3, by notification in 2019, declared the schedule of the election including Atodara Gram Panchayat for the post of Sarpanch.

Arguments before the Court

The advocate for the Petitioners has contended that the stay application and the revision application preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority challenging his removal as Sarpanch is pending, hence the post of Sarpanch cannot be said to be fallen vacant and that the interim relief may be granted. Further, if the election for the post of Sarpanch of Atodara Gram Panchayat is permitted to be held, as scheduled, it will create an analogous situation in as much as, in case the petitioner succeeds in his revision application, there would be two candidates working on the same post and that would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings. Per contra, the Respondent argued that the interim relief should not be granted. Further, the advocate relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in 2015 submitting that the petitioner has not made out strong prima face case as he has not filled in any form to contest the election announced vide notification in 2019. He further submitted that the other candidates, who are contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch, are not impleaded as a party respondent in this petition and that if the election has stayed, the functioning of the Gram Panchayat would suffer in absence of newly elected Sarpanch. He further submitted that the appellate authority has fixed hearing of the revision application preferred by the petitioner on 04.02.2020 and, in case the petitioner succeeds in the revision application, he would be reinstated on the post of Sarpanch.

Decision of the Court

The court finally admitted and granted the interim relief, however, it did clarify that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the election is stayed qua Atodara Gram Panchayat, in the Dist. Surat only. The election process for the rest of the Panchayats mentioned in the notification in 2019 has not stayed.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SCA6322020_GJHC240015902020_2_17012020_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” ]


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -