How dare you? Gujarat High Court raps Vadodara Collector for affidavit making remarks against judge

The Gujarat High Court recently expressed strong displeasure with Vadodara Collector Anil Dhameliya over statements he made about a judicial officer on affidavit.

The Court rejected his repeated apologies while warning that he had “crossed the limits”.

Justice Niral R Mehta held that the Collector's conduct was unacceptable.

“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?” Justice Mehta told Dhameliya during the hearing.

The Court was examining an affidavit filed by Dhameliya in response to a query concerning the rejection of an application for permission of non-agricultural (NA) use of certain land. The Collector had rejected the application on August 17, 2026, primarily on the ground that revision applications were pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT), although the petitioner claimed those proceedings had concluded in 2024.

Additionally, the Collector stated in the affidavit,

“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…”

In its order, the Court held that the Collector could have simply explained that the disposal of the revision applications was not reflected on the online portal, instead of narrating additional facts concerning the then in-charge chairman of the GRT.

“The collector Vadodara could have in short stated that the disposal of the aforesaid revisions were not reflected in the online portal. However, he chosen to narrate the history, which prima facie, according to this court, is nothing but imputing aspersion against a judicial officer. Such facts on oath being completely irrelevant is not only disturbing, but scandalous in nature,” observed Justice Mehta.

The judge repeatedly asked Dhameliya why he had included those details and refused to accept his unconditional apology. The Collector also offered to withdraw the affidavit, but the Court declined to permit him to do so.

“Many of dozens of dozens of orders. I have been ignoring you. But you cross the limit now,” said Justice Mehta.

Additionally, the Court also took note of pending contempt proceedings against Dhameliya in a separate matter, in which a Division Bench had framed charges in April 2026. Justice Mehta expressed concern that similar issues continued to arise despite those proceedings.

The Court further questioned whether an apology from a government officer could be treated as genuine when the conduct in question appeared to recur.

“What is the measure and gauge of sincerity? How can I gauge? What is the measurement of it? Please tell me if you have any kind of equation for that, a barometer of that. How would I gauge that your particular officer is sincere enough giving apology? It would mean that in future it would not be repeated,” asked Justice Mehta.

When Dhameliya again apologised, the judge remarked that he could offer such apologies to his superiors instead.

Justice Mehta also emphasised that the Court refrained from making personal comments about government officers even when it disagreed with their actions.

“We find all your orders rubbish. Have I said anything against you? Because we restrain, we follow decorum. You should not forget this,” said Justice Mehta.

The Court subsequently asked Additional Chief Secretary in charge of the General Administration Department (GAD) T Natarajan to join the proceedings virtually and explain what action the State administration proposed to take against the Collector.

Justice Mehta told Natarajan that repeated apologies were not sufficient to address concerns about an officer's conduct.

“We never say anything against any officer, but your officer should not even think to venture about this. He has crossed the limits. He is not immune. He must know that,” said Justice Mehta.

Natarajan said that the administration would take the Court's observations seriously and requested that the Collector's apology be considered.

The Court, however, clarified that it was not asking the administration to take any particular action. It directed that the relevant case papers, including Dhameliya's affidavit and details of the pending contempt proceedings, be placed before the Additional Chief Secretary for independent consideration.

Subsequently, the Court gave the GAD an opportunity to independently examine the Collector’s conduct and inform it of the action it proposes to take against him before the Court considers whether to initiate contempt proceedings.

The matter will be next heard on November 27.

[Read Order]