( 1 ) IN this Special Civil Application a short but important question of law has arisen for consideration of this Court.

( 2 ) TO appreciate this question of law as raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this Special Civil Application, I consider it to be necessary to briefly state the facts of the case.

( 3 ) IN the month of June-July, 1998, the election of the members of the lodhika Taluka Panchayat, Dist. Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "taluka panchayat") was held. The petitioners are the elected members of the Taluka panchayat. On 13-7-1998 the first meeting of the newly constituted Taluka panchayat was held in which one Shri Rathod was elected as its President. Under the order dated 19-6-1998 of the respondent No. 2-Mr. Rathod was ordered to be removed as a President of the Taluka Panchayat. He preferred an appeal before the Development Commissioner against the order aforesaid, which came to be rejected on 16-12-1998. Vide order dated 23-12-1998 the respondent No. 2 ordered that the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat be convened on 21/01/1999 for holding the election of the President of the Taluka Panchayat. The respondent No. 4 is the Vice-President of the Taluka Panchayat. He was also as per the petitioners case appointed as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat to be convened on 21/01/1999. It is the case of the petitioners that they submitted an application in writing to Taluka Development officer concerned, inquiring therein as to the right of the vote of Vice-President when he presides over the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat to be convened for the purpose of electing the President thereof. The petitioners as per their case were informed by the concerned officer that the respondent No. 4 has right to cast two votes in case of equality of votes.

( 4 ) IT is the grievance of the petitioners that their application was not decided and no written communication has been given to them. The petitioners in this special Civil Application prayed for declaring the Rule 12 of the Gujarat Taluka and Dist. Panchayats President and Vice-President Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as to the "rules") as ultra vires, inconsistent and repugnant to the provisions of Sec. 75 read with Sec. 63 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993" ). Next, it is prayed to declare that the respondent No. 4 has no power or authority to preside over the meeting where the election of the President is required to be held. In the alternate the prayer has been made to declare that the respondent No. 4 has no right to cast the vote.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 12 of Act, 1994 is repugnant and inconsistent with the provisions of the Sec. 75 read with Sec. 63 of the Act, 1993. It has next been contended that the person, who is presiding over the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat in which the election of the President thereof has to be held, has no right to cast the vote. Merely because the Vice- president is appointed as an officer to conduct this election he will not have any right to cast the vote. Lastly, it is contended that the object, purpose and underlying scheme of the relevant provisions of both of the Act, 1993 and the rules is to hold the election of the President and Vice-President of the Taluka panchayat, and to see that an independent person may preside over the meeting in which the election for these two offices are to be held. To achieve this object and purpose, the Vice-President should not have otherwise directed to sold the election.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the State of Gujarat contended that in case the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then it will amount to deprival of a valuable right which the Vice-President has, as being the member of Taluka panchayat to cast his vote in the election scheduled for electing the President. This valuable right clearly follows from the Act, 1993 a