Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10827/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10827 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
SOMJIBHAI
JATRABHAO DUMADA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH H SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, 4,
MR HS
MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR ADIL R MIRZA for Respondent(s) :
4,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 16/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
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.”
2. The
learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to
the aforesaid judgement and order dated 30th June 2010, a
copy of which is produced at page 73, Annexure ‘G’. The Development
Commissioner taking into 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 WCs 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 judgement 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.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top