The Gujarat High Court has expressed serious displeasure with Vadodara Collector Anil Dhamelia over statements concerning a former Gujarat Revenue Tribunal judicial officer in an affidavit. Justice Niral R. Mehta questioned the relevance of these remarks and declined to accept the Collector’s apology, observing that the affidavit appeared to cast aspersions on a judicial officer. The Court directed the State’s General Administration Department to examine the matter and report its conclusions.
Background
The matter arose from a petition challenging the Collector’s order dated August 17, 2026, which consigned an application seeking non-agricultural (NA) land-use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. The Collector had cited three revision applications before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as the reason for his decision.
The petitioners disputed this position, contending that the revision proceedings had already been disposed of. On September 28, 2026, the High Court directed the Collector to file an affidavit explaining his decision and clarifying the status of those proceedings.
In his affidavit dated October 6, the Collector referred to the former in-charge chairman of the Tribunal and previous High Court proceedings concerning that judicial officer. He also stated that the disposal of the revision applications was not reflected on the online case-management portal, which had affected the timely initiation of an appeal.
Justice Mehta questioned why the Collector had included details about the judicial officer when he could have simply explained the discrepancy in the online records. The Court held that the additional narrative was unnecessary and appeared to question the judicial officer’s conduct in unrelated proceedings.
The Court observed:
"The narration of such facts on oath, being completely irrelevant, is not only disturbing but also scandalous in nature."
It further emphasised that an existing judicial order cannot be disregarded merely because of adverse observations made against the officer who passed it in another matter.
"Under no circumstances can a judicial order be ignored merely by citing the name of the Judicial Officer who passed it."
The Court also noted that the Collector had previously faced contempt proceedings in a separate matter, where a Division Bench had framed charges on April 29, 2026. Those proceedings remained pending, and the Court considered this background while assessing the apology offered in the present case.
Although Dhamelia apologised during the virtual hearing, the Court declined to accept what it described as a mechanical apology, observing that it did not convey genuine remorse or provide assurance against repetition.
The Court considered it appropriate to bring the matter to the attention of the State’s disciplinary authority before deciding whether to refer it to the Contempt Bench.
The High Court impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary in charge of the General Administration Department as a respondent and directed the Assistant Government Pleader to provide the relevant case records, including those concerning the pending contempt proceedings.
The Additional Chief Secretary was directed to inform the Court of the findings and any further action proposed against the Collector.
The Court issued notice, returnable on November 27, 2026, and ordered that the petition be treated as part-heard.
Case Details
- Case Title: Bharvad Harishbhai Becharbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 12601 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Niral R. Mehta
- Decision Date: October 23, 2026
