A Collector’s apology has not been enough for the Gujarat High Court, which found, prima facie, that his affidavit on oath cast aspersions on a former Tribunal chairman and has asked the State’s General Administration Department to look into his conduct.
Ahmedabad: Calling the apology offered in court a mechanical one, the Gujarat High Court has declined to accept the Vadodara Collector’s apology, tendered by Anil Dhameliya, and has given the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD), an opportunity to examine the Collector’s conduct before the matter is placed before the Contempt Bench [Bharvad Harishbhai Becharbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.].
The oral order was passed by Justice Niral R. Mehta on October 23, 2026, in Special Civil Application No. 12601 of 2026. Rule was issued, returnable on November 27, 2026, and leave was granted to implead the Additional Chief Secretary, GAD, as a respondent. The Court’s observations are prima facie, and no finding of contempt has been recorded.
An apology the Court did not accept
Having found the narration prima facie contemptuous, the Court asked the Collector to appear virtually. Dhameliya apologised in court and offered to withdraw the affidavit. The Court did not take that up, describing the apology as a mechanical one that showed neither remorse nor an assurance that the conduct would not be repeated.
It also took note 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 April 29, 2026. Those proceedings remain pending.
Rather than refer the present matter straight to the Contempt Bench, the Court first gave the disciplinary authority, the Additional Chief Secretary, GAD, a chance to consider the Collector’s conduct. T. Natrajan, In-charge Additional Chief Secretary, GAD, joined online. He has been given a copy of the order, the record of this petition and the record of the pending contempt application, and must report his findings and any proposed action on the next date.
The petition and the affidavit
The petitioners challenge an order dated August 17, 2026, by which the Collector, Vadodara, consigned their application for non-agricultural (NA) use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. His main reason was that three Revision Applications were pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners told the Court on September 28, 2026, that no such revisions were pending.
The Court that day directed the Collector to file an affidavit explaining his order and clarifying the status of the revisions. His affidavit is dated October 6, 2026. According to the Court, it did not stay with the status of the revisions but gave a historical account of the land and, in one paragraph, narrated proceedings involving the former In-charge Chairman of the Tribunal, who had passed an order on May 1, 2024.
What the Court said about that paragraph
Justice Mehta held that the Collector could have said simply that the disposal of the Revision Applications was not reflected on the online portal. The paragraph on the former Chairman was, in the Court’s view, irrelevant to the issue before it and, prima facie, amounted to casting aspersions on a judicial officer.
the narration of such facts is completely uncalled for.
The Court added that any order can be challenged in the manner known to law, but that a judicial order cannot be disregarded because of the officer who passed it. It noted that the former Chairman had been relieved of his duties after earlier strictures, but said that this did not make his orders invalid; they remain effective unless set aside in accordance with law.
Defending a decision, not attacking its author
The order separates defending an administrative decision from attacking the person who made the decision under challenge. Public officers file affidavits on oath to answer the question the Court has put, and the Court has signalled that gratuitous remarks about a judicial officer will be examined as a possible contempt.
The route is also worth noting. The Court has first put the matter before the Collector’s disciplinary authority, and will decide on the next date, with the benefit of the Additional Chief Secretary’s report, whether to take it further. The Collector has apologised, and the questions of contempt and of the merits of the NA permission dispute remain open.
Case Title: Bharvad Harishbhai Becharbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [Special Civil Application No. 12601 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Niral R. Mehta, Gujarat High Court
Date of Order: October 23, 2026
Appearances: Prateek S. Bhatia for the petitioners; Nirali Sarda, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State