The Gujarat High Court has expressed displeasure with Vadodara Collector for narrating facts in an affidavit pertaining to a case decided by a former Chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, observing that the facts narrated referring to the judge were unnecessary and unwarranted. 

The court was hearing a petition challenging an order dated August 17 passed by Collector, Vadodara consigning the petitioner's application seeking Non-Agricultural (NA) use permission under the provisions of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, on the ground that certain revision applications were pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 

Previously Justice Niral R Mehta had asked the Collector, Vadodara to file an affidavit explaining its order. 

Perusing the affidavit the court on October 23 noted that the Collector had sought to justify its order by referring to the historical background of the land in question, 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 most shocking narration of facts is found in paragraph 17 of the said affidavit dated 06th October, 2026, wherein the learned Collector, Vadodara, has narrated unnecessary and unwarranted facts pertaining to a different case by referring to the name of the then Judicial Member and In-charge Chairman of the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Such narration of facts appears to have been made to justify the stand that, even if the Revision Applications were disposed of by an order dated 01st May, 2024, the same has no significance because the order was passed by a particular In-charge Chairman of the learned Tribunal against whom, in some other matter, this Court had passed strictures.

This Court is of the firm opinion that the narration of such facts is completely uncalled for. Once a judicial order is passed, an aggrieved party may challenge the same through the available statutory mechanism and cannot be permitted to disregard the said order merely because it was passed by an officer against whom, in some other matter, adverse observations were made. Judicial orders carry sanctity, and disregard for a judicial order reflects the learned Collector's insensitivity towards judicial decorum.  Prima facie, the aforesaid narration of facts appears to be contemptuous," the court said.

It had thereafter listed the matter in the post lunch session and had called upon the Collector to remain virtually present to explain his position. 

When the matter was taken up again and the Collector offered his apology, the court refused to accept it calling it a mechanical apology. The court said that it used this term because the apology does not convey a genuine sense of remorse or provide any assurance that such an act will not be repeated.

The court also took note of "dozens" of orders passed by the Collector concerning NA use permission before the court, observing that the Collector had "thoroughly disregarded" the propositions of law laid down by the Court and had decided the applications seeking N.A. use permission in accordance with his own understanding.

The court further noted that the narration of facts in the Collector's affidavit with regard to the then In-charge Chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was completely unwarranted.

"Instead, the Collector, Vadodara, could have briefly stated that the disposal of the aforesaid Revision Applications was not reflected on the online portal. However, he chose to narrate the history, which, prima facie, in the opinion of this Court, amounts to nothing but casting aspersions on a judicial officer. 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. 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. Under no circumstances can a judicial order be ignored merely by citing the name of the Judicial Officer who passed it," the court said. 

The court, before referring the matter to the contempt bench, directed the Additional Chief Secretary General Administration Department, to apprise the court of the action proposed against the Collector. 

The matter is now listed on November 27.