Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has refused to accept the apology of Vadodara Collector Anil Dhamelia, holding that a narration in his affidavit, which named a former In-charge Chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to justify ignoring the Tribunal’s order, is prima facie contemptuous.
Justice Niral R. Mehta said that a judicial order cannot be disregarded merely because of the officer who passed it, and issued a rule returnable on 27.11.2026, impleading the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, to report on action against the Collector.
The petition, Special Civil Application No. 12601 of 2026 filed by Bharvad Harishbhai Becharbhai and four others, challenges the Collector’s order of 17.08.2026, which consigned their application for N.A. use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. The Collector’s main ground was the pendency of three Revision Applications before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners, represented by Prateek S. Bhatia, submitted that no revisions were pending and that consigning the application was contrary to settled law.
By its order of 28.09.2026, the Court directed the Collector to file an affidavit explaining his order, keeping in mind its decisions on Section 65 permissions and clarifying the status of the revisions. The Collector’s affidavit of 06.10.2026 explained the land’s historical background, “unmindful of the fact that the proceedings are under the provisions of Section 65 of the Code and not under the revenue and/or tenancy proceedings.”
The Court objected most to paragraph 17 of the affidavit. There, the Collector stated that the Tribunal’s order of 01.05.2024, disposing of the revisions, was passed by Shri D.L. Patel, the then In-charge Chairman, in respect of whom the High Court had, in other proceedings, directed the State to take a decision and send him on administrative leave. The affidavit then said that the disposal was not shown on the IRCMS portal and therefore the order was not known in time.
Justice Mehta found this narration “completely uncalled for”, holding that the Collector could simply have said that the disposal was not reflected on the online portal. The Court observed:
“Under no circumstances can a judicial order be ignored merely by citing the name of the Judicial Officer who passed it.”
The Court added that an aggrieved party may challenge an order only through the available statutory mechanism, and that “merely because a Judicial Officer was relieved from service pursuant to the observations and strictures passed by this Court, all orders passed by that Judicial Officer would not, per se, lose their efficacy unless they are set aside in accordance with law.” It described the narration on oath as “not only disturbing but also scandalous”, amounting prima facie to casting aspersions on a judicial officer, and said disregard of a judicial order reflected “insensitivity towards judicial decorum”.
Before referring the matter to the Contempt Bench, the Court directed the Collector to appear virtually at 4:30 p.m. He offered an apology, which the Court declined as “mechanical” because it conveyed no genuine remorse or assurance against repetition.
The Court further noted that dozens of the Collector’s orders on N.A. use permission have come before it, in which he has disregarded the propositions of law laid down by the Court and decided applications on his own understanding. It had overlooked this earlier, but could not overlook paragraph 17. It also recorded that the Collector is already facing contempt proceedings in Miscellaneous Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 1021 of 2026, in which a Division Bench framed charges on 29.04.2026, and that his approach had remained unchanged, an additional reason for rejecting the apology.
Giving the disciplinary authority an opportunity to examine the Collector’s approach, the Court called in Shri T. Natrajan, In-charge Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, who appeared online. It issued the rule, granted leave to implead the Department’s Additional Chief Secretary as a respondent, and directed the Assistant Government Pleader to place the order, the petition record and the contempt record before him. On the next date, the Additional Chief Secretary must apprise the Court of his findings and the proposed course of action. The petition was treated as part-heard.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondents (State of Gujarat & Anr.): Ms. Nirali Sarda, AGP.
Case Title: Bharvad Harishbhai Becharbhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., R/Special Civil Application No. 12601 of 2026
![Supreme Court Affirms Women's Right to Reproductive Choices as Central to Human Dignity [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2023/08/lj_5007_Right_to_Reproductive.jpg)
