The Gujarat High Court has set aside an order cancelling the caste certificate of Kalpana Kodekar, a Congress councillor from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s Kubernagar ward, after finding that she was not given an opportunity to present her case before the decision was taken.
The court has directed the concerned authority in the Developing Castes Welfare Department to give Kodekar an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and complete the fresh process within two months. The order provides interim relief to the councillor but does not finally decide the underlying dispute over the caste certificate.
Kodekar had approached the High Court after the department’s Joint Director cancelled her caste certificate without giving her the hearing opportunity that the court had previously directed. The petition challenged the procedure followed by the authority and sought relief against the cancellation order.
According to the report, the High Court had earlier issued notice in the matter and granted interim relief to Kodekar. It had also directed that she be allowed to make a representation before the department took a decision. Despite that direction, the Joint Director passed the cancellation order without issuing notice to the petitioner or hearing her submissions.
The court subsequently required the Joint Director to remain present. During the proceedings, the state government’s Additional Advocate General tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the concerned officer. The government submitted that the order had been passed inadvertently without providing Kodekar an opportunity of hearing and assured the court that she would now be given sufficient time to respond.
The High Court recorded the assurance that the department would follow the proper legal process and take a decision in accordance with law after hearing the councillor. However, it also expressed displeasure at the officer’s conduct, noting that the earlier court directions had been issued in clear and simple terms and should have been followed.
The court observed that the authority’s failure to issue notice and provide a hearing was undisputed. It said that the unconditional apology had been taken on record, but made clear that such conduct was not acceptable. The court did not make an adverse formal remark against the officer in the order, while issuing a warning about compliance with judicial directions.
The cancellation order has consequently been set aside, and the department must reconsider the matter after giving Kodekar an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice. The fresh process is required to be completed within two months, after which the authority will take a decision according to law.
