Gujarat High Court: Vadodara Collector Reprimanded for Affidavit Remarks

• The Gujarat High Court severely reprimanded Vadodara Collector Anil Dhameliya for critical remarks made about a judicial officer in an affidavit.
• Justice Niral R Mehta stated the Collector's conduct was unacceptable and rejected his apologies.
• The controversial affidavit concerned the rejection of an NA land use application, where the Collector criticized the 'In-charge Chairman' of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
• The court indicated the Collector could have simply stated the revision applications' disposal was not reflected online, rather than making accusatory statements.
• This case highlights the imperative for government officials to maintain respect for judicial processes and personnel in their official communications.

Lawyers advising government officials or drafting affidavits in administrative matters must ensure all statements are factual and respectful, avoiding any remarks that could be construed as criticizing judicial or quasi-judicial officers, to prevent severe judicial reprimand and adverse outcomes.

The Gujarat High Court recently issued a stern reprimand to Vadodara Collector Anil Dhameliya, expressing significant displeasure over remarks he included in an affidavit concerning a judicial officer. Justice Niral R Mehta presided over the matter, unequivocally stating that the Collector's conduct was unacceptable and that he had "crossed the limits." The court rejected Dhameliya's repeated apologies, underscoring the gravity of his actions.

During the hearing, Justice Mehta directly challenged the Collector, questioning his adherence to legal principles and judicial directives. The judge's pointed remarks included, "Are you performing your duty in accordance with the dictum of the court? You don't follow any law? Sitting in your AC office and you are alleging against a judicial officer? How dare you?" This strong language highlights the court's serious view of the Collector judicial officer conduct in this instance.

The affidavit in question was submitted by Collector Anil Dhameliya in response to an inquiry regarding the rejection of an application for non-agricultural (NA) land use permission. The Collector had denied the application on August 17, 2026, citing pending revision applications before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) as the primary reason. However, the petitioner in the case contended that these proceedings had, in fact, concluded in 2024.

Crucially, the affidavit contained specific Anil Dhameliya affidavit remarks that drew the High Court's ire. It stated: "Since the said In-charge Chairman passed the some order of other land of Anand District without properly appreciating and interpreting the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat…" This direct criticism of a judicial officer's decision-making process, embedded within an official court document, formed the core of the court's concern.

In its ruling, the Gujarat High Court emphasized that the Collector had a straightforward and factual alternative to the contentious remarks. The court noted that Dhameliya could have simply explained that the online portal did not reflect the disposal of the revision applications. Instead, he chose to include additional, critical commentary regarding the then in-charge chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which the court found entirely inappropriate.

This incident carries significant Gujarat administrative law implications, particularly concerning the expected conduct of government officials when interacting with the judiciary. The Justice Niral R Mehta ruling underscores the principle that administrative officers, even when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, must maintain decorum and respect for judicial processes and personnel. The court's criticism of the Collector's remarks regarding the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal highlights the boundaries that must not be crossed in official communications.

This strong reprimand from the Gujarat High Court serves as a critical reminder of the importance of maintaining respect for judicial and quasi-judicial officers within the administrative framework. The court's rejection of the Collector's apologies and its firm stance against the critical remarks in the affidavit reinforce the necessity for government officials to uphold the dignity of the judicial system.

Lawyers advising government officials or drafting affidavits in administrative matters must ensure all statements are factual and respectful, avoiding any remarks that could be construed as criticizing judicial or quasi-judicial officers, to prevent severe judicial reprimand and adverse outcomes. This case illustrates that even perceived slights against judicial authority, particularly when formally documented, can lead to significant judicial displeasure and adverse consequences for the official involved.

Lawyers advising government officials or drafting affidavits in administrative matters must ensure all statements are factual and respectful, avoiding any remarks that could be construed as criticizing judicial or quasi-judicial officers, to prevent severe judicial reprimand and adverse outcomes.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench