Petitioner sought writ to direct respondent to act against Sarpanch regarding pending representations. Court directed respondent to decide representations within six weeks and disposed of petition as not pressed.
Respondent Director directed to decide petitioner representations within 6 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/5401/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5401 of 2021
==========================================================
KAMLESHBHAI REVABHAI SOLANKI
Versus DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DILIP RANA FOR MS. HEENA D RANA(8349) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 25/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana
for learned advocate Mr. Heena D. Rana for the
petitioner through video conference.
2.By way of this petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following relief:
“(A). The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no.1 authority to take action against the respondent NO.3 Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Act pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the authority on the representations dated 26.04.2019, 09.07.2020 and 29.10.2020 made by the petitioner and the observations made by the Hon'ble Court in S.C.A. No. 12396 of 2020.
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to give mandatory direction to the
Page 1 of 3
C/SCA/5401/2021 ORDER
respondent no.1 authority to take action against the respondent NO.3 Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Act pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the authority on the representations made by the petitioner.
(C) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3.Learned advocate Mr. Dilip Rana, today,
submitted that considering the fact that pursuant
to the order passed by this Court in Special
Civil Application No. 12396 of 2020, the
respondent no.1 was directed to look into the
allegations made against the respondent no.3 –
Sarpanch. Learned advocate Mr. Rana further
submitted that, though the order was passed by
this Court in aforesaid Special Civil
application, on 12.10.2020, till date, the
representations made by the petitioner dated
26.04.2019, 09.07.2020 and 29.10.2020 have
remained undecided by the respondent no.1.
Learned advocate Mr. Rana further points out that
at this juncture, if the respondent no.1 is
directed to decide the representations of the
petitioner within some time bound schedule, the
grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed
to a great extent.
Page 2 of 3
C/SCA/5401/2021 ORDER
4.In view of the above submission of
learned advocate Mr. Rana, respondent no.1 is
directed to decide the representations made by
the petitioner dated 26.04.2019, 09.07.2020 and
29.10.2020 preferably within a period of 6 (six)
weeks from the date of the receipt of the order
by passing a reasoned order and the copy of the
order may be served upon the petitioner by
Registered Post A.D. It is clarified that, while
issuing the aforesaid direction, this Court has
not gone into merits of the matter and in view of
the aforesaid direction, learned advocate Mr.
Rana does not press this petition, at this stage,
with a prayer that all rights and contentions of
the petitioner may be kept opened to challenge
the order that the respondent no.1 may pass, if
required by the petitioner.
5.While deciding the representations of
the petitioner, the respondent no.1 may not get
influenced by the fact that, this petition has
not pressed by the petitioner.
6.With the aforesaid direction, the
petition stands disposed of, as not pressed.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pradhyuman
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority should decide the petitioner's representations within a specified time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KAMLESHBHAI REVABHAI SOLANKI
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
NIRZAR S. DESAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court