C. K. THAKKER, K. M. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the provisions of Section 56 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as arbitrary, ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. A prayer is also made to issue appropriate directions to quash and set aside No Confidence Motion, dated 15/05/1997 (Annexure "b" to the petition ).

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they are citizens and nationals of India and they are residents of village Indrad. They were registered as voters of said village. It is stated that eight members of the Village Panchayat gave a notice for " No Confidence Motion" against Sarpanch-Smt. Raiben, W/0 of Ramaji Maganji Thakore, respondent No. 4 to the petition. The notice was given on 15/05/1998 making baseless and false allegations against her. It was asserted by the petitioners that they are interested in proper administration of Village Panchayat and as the issuance of notice was contrary to law and the provisions under which it was issued are unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India, they are constrained to approach this court by filing the petition.

( 3 ) IT appears that the matter was placed before the learned vacation judge though vires was challenged in the petition. As per the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, such matter ccan be placed before a Division Bench. But since the petition was filed on 21/05/1999, i. e. during summer vacation, it was placed before the vacation judge. The learned vacation judge after hearing the learned advocate for petitioners issued notice to the respondents and made it returnable on 28/06/1999. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 16 (C) was also granted till returnable date. Thereafter the matter was placed before a Division Bench taking up such matters. The Division Bench admitted the matter on September 2, 1999. Ad-interim relief was ordered to be continued from time to time. Today, the matter is called for hearing.

( 4 ) MR. K. G. VAKHARIA, Senior Advocate for Mr. Tushar Mehta raised two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the provisions of Section 56 of the Act are ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, in the alternative, he submitted that since the procedure required to be followed under the Act has not been followed, notice for no-confidence could not have been issued. It was submitted that when the act of issuance of notice itself was without jurisdiction the objection goes to the root of the matter and the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the notice dated 15/05/1999. In this connection Mr. Vakharia drew our attention to the provisions of the Gujarat Gram Panchayat Motion of No-Confidence against Sarpanch (Manner of Voting by Gram Sabha) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ).

( 5 ) MR. JOSHI, Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of Section 56 cannot be said to be ultra vires or unconstitutional. It was urged that since a notice of no confidence was issued, this court may not interfere at this stage. It is always open to the party aggrieved to take appropriate action in accordance with law after a decision is taken on such notice.

( 6 ) MR. BRAHMBHATT, learned advocate for respondent Nos 6 to 13 supported the learned Assistant Government Pleader and added that it is well established law that there is a presumption in favour of Constitutionality of a statute. When a contention is raised that a particular legislative provision is unconstitutional a court will not proceed in that direction presuming the provision to be ultra vires without substantial grounds leading to unconstitutionality of such provision. He submitted that nothing was pointed out even primafacie why the provision can be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document