SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/747122 |
Subject | Civil;Election |
Court | Gujarat High Court |
Decided On | Aug-13-2009 |
Case Number | Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009 |
Judge | D.A. Mehta, J. |
Reported in | AIR2009Guj190 |
Acts | Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 |
Appellant | Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod |
Respondent | State of Gujarat |
Appellant Advocate | N.K. Majmudar, Adv. |
Respondent Advocate | Jirga Jhaveri, AGP |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";
if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]- sections 4(3), proviso, 5 & 6: [m.s. shah, d.h. waghela & akil kureshi, jj] complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under section 4(3) - held, it need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6. burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. sections 5 & 6 & pre-conception & pre-natal diagnostic techniques (prohibition of sex selection) rules, 1996, rule 9: [m.s. shah, d.h. waghela & akil kureshi, jj] deficiency or inaccuracy in filling form f - held, deficiency or inaccuracy in filling form f prescribed under rule 9 of the rules made under pndt act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner,.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";
if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]orderd.a. mehta, j.1. learned advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by revisional authority as annexure 'g'. permission granted. amendment to be carried out during course of the day. the petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.2. this petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by taluka development officer, 7.2.2009 made by district development officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by deputy secretary (inquiry), panchayat gram gruhnirman and gram vikas vibhag, sachivalaya, gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.3. the petitioner was elected as sarpanch of kharadharva gram panchayat at election held in april, 2007. the taluka development officer.....Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
D.A. Mehta, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
xxx xxx xxx
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(m) has more than two children:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 13include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 14include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 15include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 16include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 17include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 18include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 19include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 20include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 21include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 22include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 23include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(m) has more than two children:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs State of Gujarat - Citation 747122 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '747122', 'acts' => 'Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 30(1), 32 and 57; Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005', 'appealno' => 'Spl. Civil Appln. No. 6632 of 2009', 'appellant' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Vishnubhai Joitaram Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 4(3), Proviso, 5 & 6: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under Section 4(3) - Held, It need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6. Burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. Sections 5 & 6 & Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F - Held, Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. Section 28: [M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela & Akil Kureshi, JJ] Cognizance of offence Held, Use of the words Appropriate Authority twice, at the beginning and end of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by an officer who is authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate Authority itself. The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of Section 28, and, therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' N.K. Majmudar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Jirga Jhaveri, AGP', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2009-08-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' D.A. Mehta, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.</p><p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.</p><p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.</p><p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.</p><p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.</p><p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.</p><p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:</p><p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:</p><p>xxx xxx xxx</p><p>(m) has more than two children:</p><p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:</p><p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.</p><p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;</p><p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.</p><p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.</p><p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.</p><p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,</p><p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.</p><p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.</p><p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.</p><p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.</p><p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2009Guj190', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat', 'sub' => 'Civil;Election', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $args = array( (int) 0 => '747122', (int) 1 => 'vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747122/vishnubhai-joitaram-rathod-vs-state-gujarat' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.A. Mehta, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more than two children at the time of contesting the election of Sarpanch and thus was disqualified in, light of provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in light of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Amending Act). The Taluka Development Officer passed an order on 1.9.2008 removing the petitioner as Sarpanch.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The petitioner carried the matter by way of an Appeal before the District Development Officer who confirmed the order of Taluka Development Officer vide order dated 7.2.2009.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petitioner did not succeed in the Revision Application filed before the State Government.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. The principal thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that third child was born on 9.12.2006. and therefore, Clause (m) of Section 30(1) of the Act, could not have been made applicable and the Authorities were not Justified in exercising powers under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted that the Amending Act was made effective from 4.8.2005 and therefore within a period of one year therefrom, if a child was conceived, but born later than the period of one year, no disqualification would be incurred. It was submitted that the provision uses the word 'born' which would take within its sweep the point of time when a foetus is conceived as that would be the point when one can term that a child is born. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that if this act takes place within the stipulated period of one year it cannot be stated that the petitioner had incurred any disqualification and therefore the orders made by the respondent-Authorities were liable to be struck down.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Alternatively it was submitted that for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, action has to be taken under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act but the Authorities have only ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 32 on, the ground that disqualification in terms of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act had been incurred. That the said provision pertains to disqualification as a Member and therefore on this count the orders were liable to be struck down.', (int) 8 => '<p>8. The principal contention appears to be attractive at first blush but when one reads relevant provision it becomes clear that the contention is based on a fallacious premise. The relevant provision of Section 30 as is material for the present reads as under:', (int) 9 => '<p>30(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who:', (int) 10 => '<p>xxx xxx xxx', (int) 11 => '<p>(m) has more than two children:', (int) 12 => '<p>Provided that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'the date of such commencement'), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:', (int) 13 => '<p>Provided further that a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under this clause.', (int) 14 => '<p>Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;', (int) 15 => '<p>(ii) 'child' does not include an adopted child or children.', (int) 16 => '<p>9. A plain reading indicates that no person shall be a Member of the Panchayat or continue as such a Member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of the disqualifications set out in Clauses (a) to (m) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Clause (m) stipulates that a Member who has more than two children shall not be entitled to be a Member of the Panchayat. In other words, the disqualification is at both stages, namely, when a person contests the election and secondly during continuance of a membership If it is found that person has more than two children. However, the two Provisos under Clause (m) carve out an exception in the contingencies specified in each of the Provisos.', (int) 17 => '<p>10. The First Proviso stipulates that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act shall not be disqualified under Clause (m) so long as the number of children the person had on the date of such commencement does not increase. The Second Proviso stipulates further that within a period of one year from the date of such commencement, if a child or more than one child is born in a single delivery the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification under Clause (m). For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the Explanation.', (int) 18 => '<p>11. A plain reading of the Second Proviso indicates that a person incurs disqualification the moment any child/children in excess of existing two children on the date of commencement of the Amending Act is born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement. In other words, to put it simply, any child conceived prior to the date of commencement of the amendment, namely 4.8.2005, but born before 3.8.2006 would not be considered for the purpose of disqualification,', (int) 19 => '<p>12. The contention that the term 'born' appearing in Second Proviso be considered to be equivalent to the term 'conceived' does not merit acceptance on a plain reading of the provisions. The period of one year from the date of such commencement is preceded by phrase 'born in a single delivery within'. The plain language employed by legislature 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 4.8.2005. It is not as if legislature has excepted 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. Reading the provision in such a manner would defeat the intent and purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to ensure that persons in public life should set-up an example by limiting the strength of the family in consonance with the policy of the State in public interest. Any other meaning would defeat the object of the legislation. This becomes clear when one reads the First Proviso which permits a person to contest election or continue as a Member where prior to the date of commencement of the amendment the person was already having more than two children, subject to the stipulation that such number of children on the date of commencement of the provision does not increase subsequently.', (int) 20 => '<p>13. The word 'born' cannot be equated with 'conceived' as suggested by the learned Counsel as the said term is followed by the phrase 'any single delivery'. This makes it more than abundantly clear that it is the point of time of birth because the concept of delivery would take within its sweep the physical act of giving birth and cannot mean the point of time when the foetus is conceived. The word 'foetus' means an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception, the emphasis being on unborn. Thus the same would be absolutely contrary/opposite to the word 'born'.', (int) 21 => '<p>14. Thus considering the issue from any angle the petition does not merit acceptance on this count. The respondent-Authorities have not committed any legal error so as to warrant interference.', (int) 22 => '<p>15. In relation to the alternative contention that for removing a Sarpanch, action can be initiated only under Section 57 of the Act, suffice it to state that the factum of birth of a child on 9.12.2006 is not in dispute. The Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner does not level any charge of misconduct in discharge of duty or any of the other charges stipulated by Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the import of the Order has to be gathered by reading an order as a whole and if the Authorities have merely stipulated removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch while referring to provision of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act. one has to understand that the action is for removing the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and not only from the post of Sarpanch, Which he would otherwise also lose, once the membership is last. Alternative contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.', (int) 23 => '<p>16. In the result, for the reasons recorded herein-before, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.<p>', (int) 24 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 24include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109