( 1 ) THE petitioner who was elected of a Sarpanch of demai Gram Panchayat in July, 1989 has challenged the orders passed under Secs. 49 (1) and 49 (3) removing him from the office of Sarpanch on the ground of the alleged misconduct.

( 2 ) A show cause notice was issued on the petitioner on 9/05/1991, a copy of which is at Annexure "j" to the petition under Sec. 49 (1) of the Act on seven charges mentioned therein which were levelled on the footing that though the panchayat had no power to levy toll it had passed a resolution initially on 2 9/03/1990 being resolution No. 14, to levy toll at the rate of Rs. 2. 00 and thereafter had passed another resolution No. 20 (1) dated 28/05/1990 for levying toll with effect from 1-10-1990 on animals carrying burden at the rate of 30 paise per day and thereafter again by resolution No. 4-2 dated 20/09/1990 the Panchayat resolved to give contract for collection of the toll so imposed pursuant to which ijara was given and therefore, petitioner had committed misconduct under Sec. 49 (1) of the Act. By an order dated 22nd October, i 992 passed by the District Development officer under Sec. 49 (1) of the said Act, it was held that there was no provision for imposing toll tax under Sec. 178 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1961 and there was also no such provision in Rules 142 to 146 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964 and therefore, the levy of the toll was unauthorised. On this finding it was inferred that the Sarpanch had committed misconduct inasmuch as he had abused his position as a Sarpanch. This order came to be confirmed by the Additional Development Commissioner exercising appellate powers under Sec. 49 (3) of the said Act. Even the Additional Development commissioner found that the resolutions dated 29/03/1990, 28/05/1990, 20/09/1990 were illegal and that the Taluka Development Officer had by his order dated 13/02/1991 suspended the operation of the resolutions of the Panchayat dated 28/05/1990 and 20/09/1990 under Sec. 294 of the said Act.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the Panchayat had passed resolutions imposing the levy of toll on animals carrying burden. A copy of the resolution dated 29/03/1990 which is at Annexure "c" shows that earlier it was resolved to charge toll at the rate of rs. 2/- and objections were invited against that proposal from the public. On 2 4/05/1990, the District Development Officer by letter at Annuexure "d" to the petition had written to the Panchayat that there was no provision in Sec. 178 of the said Act for imposing tax on vehicles passing through the Panchayat area but the Panchayat could within the limits of Rule 144 decide to impose taxes according to the Schedule, at the "toll Naka". On 28/05/1990 the Panchayat by its resolution No. 20 (1) resolved under the provisions of Rule 144 of the said Rules proposing levy of toll at the rate of 30 paise per day which rate is prescribed in the Schedule to the said Rules. The Panchayat resolved to call for objections against the proposed levy. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 18/06/1990 in a local daily "jansatta", a copy of which is at Annexure "f" to the petition. Thereafter, on 20/09/1990 the Panchayat passed a resolution No. 44 finally imposing toll from 1-10-1990 on each loaded or unloaded vehicle drawn by two or more animals at the rate of 30 paise per day which is the prescribed maximum under the Schedule, prescribed under Rule 144 of the said Rules, By the same resolution the Panchayat authorised the Sarpanch to give a private contract for collection of octroi fixing the upset price at Rs. 21,600. 00 by referring to the provisions of Sec. 180 of the said Act under which it could give such contract. The provisions of Sec. 178 (l) (v-a) clearly empower a Gram Panchayat to levy a toll on vehicles and animals used for riding, draught or burden entering the Gram Panchayat which are not liable to taxation under clause (v) of sub-sec. (1 ). Thus, eventhough there