SCA/8988/2008 1/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8988 of 2008 ========================================================= ALPABEN GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VM PANCHOLI for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 07/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Shri Pancholi for the petitioner.
The
petitioner is aggrieved by the stand of the Development
Commissioner, respondent No.1 herein, by virtue of which request of
the petitioner to be joined as party respondent in Appeal No.
33/2008 came to be turned down by the impugned order dated
24.6.2008.
The
petitioner had levelled certain allegations against respondent No.3
who is the elected Sarpanch of village Bhadran, Taluka Borsad. On
the basis of such allegations, inquiry was conducted against
respondent No.3 and the DDO by his order dated 22.4.2008 ordered
removal of respondent No.3 as Sarpanch. Respondent No.3 preferred
the above-mentioned appeal in which the petitioner sought to join
herself as a party respondent mainly contending that it was on the
basis of her complaint that action came to be initiated against
respondent No.3. It was this application which came to be turned
down by impugned order.
I
am afraid the stand of the petitioner cannot be upheld. It is true
that the initiation of the inquiry against respondent No.3 was on
the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner. However, the DDO
has exercised powers under the Panchayat Act and in particular
Section 57 thereof. These are statutory powers investing statutory
duties in the DDO. This order is appealable before the Development
Commissioner. Such appeal is being heard by the Competent Authority.
Insofar as respondent No.3 and elected Sarpanch and her removal from
the said position for certain alleged misconduct is concerned, the
petitioner can have no further role than to ventilate her grievance
through making a complaint which she already has done.
This
was the view adopted by this Court in an order dated 10.12.1997
passed in Special Civil Application No.8947/1997. Learned advocate
for the petitioner fairly conceded that decision in the said case
would squarely apply in the present case also. Independently, I also
had an occasion to take a similar view in order dated 8.12.2005
passed in Special Civil Application No.17427/2005.
The
petition is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)