( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-08-2001 whereby the Writ Petition against the order of his suspension from the Office of elected President of Anand Municipality has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner held the Office of President of Anand Municipality. His term of Office is upto 30-06-2002. It is not in dispute that he was detained in jail custody from 13-06-2001 to 06-07-2001 and was released on bail on 07-07-2001. The detention in jail of the petitioner was in connection with a case registered in Anand Police Station as C. R. No. 257 of 2001 and C. R. No. 254 of 2001 for alleged offences under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 25 (C) of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

( 3 ) THE Director of Municipalities by his impugned order dated 21-06-2001 in exercise of his powers under Section 40 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (for short `the Act) suspended the petitioner from the Office of the President on the ground of his detention in prison. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner under subsection (3) of Section 40 of the Act has been dismissed by the State Government through the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of State of Gujarat.

( 4 ) THE main contention advanced by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge and in this Court, which is based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 40 of the Act is that since the detention of the petitioner in prison was not during `trial within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.), the provisions of Section 40 of the Act should not have been resorted to for suspending the petitioner from his elected Office of President. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 28-08-2001, which is the subject matter of this Letters Patent Appeal, has construed the provisions of Section 40 of the Act and held that the expression used therein "detention in jail during trial" includes within its meaning "detention in jail during the process of trial". For better appreciation of the construction placed on the provision of Section 40 of the Act by the learned Single Judge, it would be better to reproduce his reasoning contained in paragraph 10 of the judgment and order:"10. HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, and the practical difficulty that may arise in the functioning of the local body, I am of the view that the expression "detention in jail during trial" mentioned in second part of Section 40 (1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act should not be narrowly construed, and that the expression "detention in jail during trial" should include the detention during pre-trial, trial and post-trial. Having regard to the expectation of the people about the conduct of the holder of public office representatives and the practical difficulty that may arise in the functions of the local bodies, I am of the view that the detention in jail during trial as mentioned in second part of section 40 (1) of the Act should be interpreted as "detention in jail during the process of trial" which period shall include from the date of filing of the F. I. R. till the end of trial, and the detention of the President or Vice President at any time during this period in jail shall attract the second part of Section 40 (1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, and the authority is competent to take a decision whether such President or Vice President who has been detained in custody in connection with the alleged criminal offence should be suspended or not. The authority while considering the suspension of the President or Vice President during detention should take a decision according to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by such President or Vice President. In the instant case when the