The Gujarat High Court criticised Vadodara Collector Anil Dhamelia over remarks targeting a former judicial officer. The rebuke highlights concerns about administrative disregard for judicial authority and settled law.Stock photo used for illustrationAhmedabad,Oct 26, 2026 15:58 ISTThe Gujarat High Court has criticised Vadodara Collector Anil Dhamelia for including what it called “unnecessary and unwarranted” statements about a former judicial member and in-charge chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in an affidavit, news agency Press Trust of India reported.Justice Niral Mehta, in an order passed last Friday, directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the General Administration Department to propose further action against Dhamelia by the next hearing on November 27.The court was hearing a petition challenging the collector’s August 17, 2026 order on an application seeking permission to use land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
The collector had cited three revision applications pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.The petitioner told the High Court that no revision applications were pending before the tribunal and argued that closing the application in this manner was contrary to settled law. The court then directed the collector to file an affidavit, in which he made remarks about the former judicial officer.
According to PTI, the High Court said the collector’s account concerning the former in-charge chairman was “completely uncalled for” and “completely unwarranted”. It said the statements prima facie amounted to casting aspersions on the former 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,” the bench said. The court said that merely because a judicial officer had been relieved from service following observations and strictures passed by the High Court, all orders passed by him would not automatically lose their validity unless they were set aside in accordance with law.It added that a judicial order could not be ignored under any circumstances merely by citing the name of the judicial officer who had passed it.The court told Dhamelia, who attended the hearing virtually, that his apology would not be accepted and that a departmental inquiry would be ordered against him.“Do you have the slightest idea what you have committed?
You are making aspersion against a judicial officer, saying that he was not considering the matter in true perspective. Are you doing that?
You can’t make any statement against a judicial officer like this. Don’t dare it even in the future,” the court said orally.In its order, the court said the collector’s “mechanical apology” did not show genuine remorse or provide any assurance that such conduct would not be repeated.The court also noted that dozens of the collector’s orders on applications seeking permission for non-agricultural use had come before it.
In all such cases, the collector had disregarded legal principles laid down by the court and decided the applications according to his own understanding, the order said.The High Court further noted that Dhamelia was already facing contempt proceedings in which a division bench had framed charges against him through an order dated April 29. Despite those proceedings, the collector’s approach appeared to have remained unchanged, it said.The court made the Additional Chief Secretary of the General Administration Department a respondent in the case and directed the official to inform it about the findings or conclusions reached and any further action proposed against the collector by November 27.The High Court will, therefore, consider the proposed action against Dhamelia at the next hearing while continuing to examine the petition challenging his decision on the land-use application.- Ends