Ahmedabad, Oct 26 The Gujarat High Court has come down heavily on Vadodara Collector Anil Dhamelia for making "unnecessary and unwarranted facts" pertaining to then judicial member and in-charge chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in an affidavit.
The single bench of Justice Niral Mehta, in its order on Friday last week, said the collector's narration of facts regarding the then judicial officer was "completely uncalled for".
The HC directed the Additional Chief Secretary of General Administration Department to propose further course of action against Dhamelia by the next date of hearing on November 27.
The court was hearing a petition challenging the collector's order of August 17, 2026, on a plea seeking non-agricultural (NA) use permission under section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code 1879, on the ground that three revision applications are already pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
The petitioner claimed before the HC that no revisions were pending before the Tribunal and further contended that consigning the petitioner's application was contrary to the settled proposition of law.
The HC then directed the collector to file an affidavit, in which he made the remarks against the then judicial officer that peeved the court.
The HC said the collector's narration of facts with regard to the then in-charge chairman of the Tribunal in his affidavit "was completely unwarranted" and, prima facie, amounts to nothing but casting aspersions on him.
"The narration of such facts on oath, being completely irrelevant, is not only disturbing but also scandalous in nature. As stated hereinabove, any order can be assailed in accordance with law; however, it is unacceptable to name the author of an order sought to be assailed in entirely different proceedings," the HC bench said.
Merely because a judicial officer was relieved from service pursuant to the observations and strictures passed by the high court, all orders passed by him would not, per se, lose their efficacy unless they are set aside in accordance with law, it said.
Under no circumstances can a judicial order be ignored merely by citing the name of the judicial officer who passed it, the HC order stated.
The court told the collector, who was present virtually, that his apologies will not be accepted and a departmental inquiry will be ordered against him.
"Do you have the slightest idea what you have committed? ..You are making aspersion against a judicial officer, saying that he was not considering the matter in true perspective. Are you doing that? ... You can't make any statement against a judicial officer like this. Don't dare it even in the future," the court remarked orally.
In its order, the court said the collector's "mechanical apology" does not convey a genuine sense of remorse or provide any assurance that such an act will not be repeated.
The court also noted in its order that dozens of the collector's orders concerning applications seeking NA use permission have come before the court.
And in all such matters, he has thoroughly disregarded the propositions of law laid down by this court and has decided the applications in accordance with his own understanding, the order said.
The court also noted that the collector is already facing contempt proceedings in which the division bench of HC framed charges against him in an order dated April 29.
Despite the aforesaid contempt proceedings, the approach of the collector appears to have remained unchanged, the HC said.
The court impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, as a party respondent.
It directed him to apprise the court of the findings and/or conclusions reached and the further course of action, if any, proposed against the collector by the next date of hearing.
