Suspended councilor of Unjha municipality challenges single judge verdict in bench, HC won’t stay order | Suspended councilor of Unjha municipality challenges single judge verdict in bench, HC won’t stay order

Councilor Bhavesh Patel was accused that during the Corona period, the shops of traders were being forcibly closed by the Chief Sanitary Inspector in Unjha Nagar Palika. Moreover, he also alleged that he was misbehaved and insulted. When this complaint reached the Municipal Commissioner, he suspended Councilor Bhavesh Patel under Gujarat Municipality Act 37(1).

The judgment of the single judge of the High Court was challenged in the bench
Bhavesh Patel approached the High Court against that decision. Where single judge Nirzar Desai held that the use of unparliamentary or vulgar language by a public representative is a valid and reasonable ground for disqualification of a person acting as a public representative. The decision to disqualify Unjha Municipal Councilor Bhavesh Patel was upheld by the High Court. Now the judgment of the single judge of the High Court regarding the conduct of the public representative has been challenged by the petitioner. The bench admitted the appeal, holding that prima facie there was no case for grant of injunction. The High Court has refused to stay the order of the single judge.

The petitioner put people’s lives at risk
The High Court had earlier noted that the Unjha Municipality held a meeting with the police authorities and shopkeepers during the Corona epidemic and decided to keep the shops voluntarily closed for a week. The Chief Sanitary Inspector was acting disinterestedly in the implementation of this decision. At that time, instead of cooperating with this decision as a people’s representative, the petitioner created obstacles in the work of the government employee. In addition to this, the video clip of which is also available is a conversation in vulgar language. The court also noted that despite knowing that the value of human life is more than that of business-employment, the petitioner has behaved in such a way that people’s lives are endangered. which is misconduct. The public follows the footsteps of the people representative. The court also observed that the public representative has a duty to show the right path to the people.