( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Yogesh Thakker, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent in each Revision Application. In view of the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the urgency involved in the matters, these Revision Applications are taken up for final hearing today. As common questions of facts and law are involved in all these matters, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioners, who are authorised to hold election to elect members of rohishala Gram Panchayat, Taluka Botad, Dist. Bhavnagar, have filed present revision Applications challenging common judgment and order dated 22-10-1996 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 192 of 1996, 193 of 1996, 194 of 1996, 195 of 1996 and 196 of 1996, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners are dismissed and mandatory ad interim injunction dated 18-10-1996 granted by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar below applications Exh. 5 filed in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 737, 738, 739, 740 and 741, all of 1996, is confirmed.

( 3 ) THE Election Commission, Gujarat State, issued Notification dated September 30, 1996 under Sec. 15 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short "the Act") for election of Members to Rohishala Gram Panchayat. The respondent No. 1 of c. R. A. No. 1731 of 1996, i. e. , Dharamshibhai Muljibhai filed his nomination from ward No. 8, the respondent of C. R. A. No. 1732 of 1996, i. e. , Ms. Pushpaben raghavbhai filed her nomination from Ward No. 3, the respondent of C. R. A. No. 1733 of 1996, i. e. , Chhelabhai Pahabhai filed his nomination from Ward No. 5, the respondent of C. R. A. No. 1734 of 1996, i. e. , Liliben Govindbhai filed her nomination from Ward No. 2, whereas respondent of C. R. A. No. 1735 of 1996, i. e. , Nondhabhai morabhai filed his nomination from Ward No. 7, on October 7, 1996. The petitioner no. 1 who is Returning Officer, on scrutiny of nomination papers, rejected their nomination papers on October 8, 1996. The respondents, therefore, feeling aggrieved, approached the petitioner No. 2, i. e. , the Collector and District Election Officer, bhavnagar. It is the case of all the respondents that the petitioner No. 2 refused to redress their grievance by informing that rejection of nomination papers by the returning Officer was final and appeal was not competent. Therefore, the respondent in each Revision Application approached the Court of learned Civil Judge (S. D.), bhavnagar by filing Civil Suit Nos. 737 of 1996 to 741 of 1996 respectively and prayed to declare that the order rejecting their nomination papers by the Returning officer was illegal, unconstitutional and mala fide. Each respondent also prayed to declare that nomination papers submitted by him/her were valid. A prayer to issue injunction directing the petitioners to allow the respective respondents to contest the election as member of Rohishala Gram Panchayat was also made. The respondent (9) Civil Revision Application No. 901 of 1995 (Coram : A. N. Divecha, J.) decided on 24-5-1995 by G. H. C. in each Revision Application submitted application Exh. 5 and claimed ad interim mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to permit him/her to contest the election after declaring that nomination papers presented by them were valid. The learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar, by order dated October 18, 1996, declared that nomination papers presented by each respondent in these Revision Applications were valid and issued mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to permit each respondent of all these Revision Applications to contest the election of members to Rohishala Gram Panchayat. The order of the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar was challenged by the petitioners before the District Court, at Bhavnagar by filing misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 192 of 1996 to 196 of 1996. The learned Joint District judge, who heard the appeals, has by common ju