As the case goes, Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod was elected sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat in Patan district in April 2007.
A man in Patan district who was elected sarpanch in April 2007 has had a double whammy: after the district administration disqualified him from the post on the grounds that he had more than two children, the Gujarat High Court has rejected his petition.
As the case goes, Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod was elected sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat in Patan district in April 2007. Later, the taluka development officer (TDO) initiated proceedings against him under the provisions of section 32 read with section 30(1)(m) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.
The TDO held that Rathod was having more than two children at the time of contesting the elections for the post of sarpanch and thus he was disqualified in the light of provisions of section 30(1)(m) of the Act in the light of the Gujarat Local Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2005. The TDO passed an order on September 1, 2008 removing Rathod as the sarpanch.
Rathod then filed an appeal before the district development officer (DDO). But the DDO confirmed the TDO's order on February 7, 2009. This made Rathod to file a petition in Gujarat High Court challenging the TDO's order.
Advocate Nirav Majmudar, who filed the petition on behalf of Rathod, submitted: "The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the third child was born on December 9, 2006 and therefore provisions of section 30(1) of the Act could not have been made applicable and the authorities were not justified in exercising the powers under section 32 of the Act."
Majmudar also submitted that the amending act was made effective from August 4, 2005 and therefore within a period of one year from then, if a child was conceived, but born after a gap of one year, no disqualification would be applicable.
However, Justice DA Mehta of the High Court rejected the petition on the grounds that any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment namely August 4, 2005, but born before August 3, 2006 would not be considered.
The court also observed that it is indicative of the fact that the birth has to take place within a period of one year from the date of commencement which is August 4, 2005. "It is not as if legislature has expected that a child born beyond the period of one year from the date of commencement but conceived during the period of one year shall not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,'' the court ruled.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}