( 1 ) THE present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22. 3. 2002 passed by the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in purported exercise of powers under section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") whereby the petitioner No. 1 is removed as the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the petitioner Nos 2 to 5 are removed as the members of the Planning Committee and are also removed as the members/councillors of Unjha Municipality.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners came to be elected as Councillors of Unjha Municipality at the General election of Unjha Municipality (hereinafter referred to as "the Municipality" ). It is the case of the petitioners that there are in all 36 councillors elected at the said election which took place in December, 1999 result of which was declared on 4. 1. 2000. The case of the petitioners is that out of 36 councillors who came to be elected, 18 were belonging to Cong. I, 10 were belonging to BJP and 8 were Independent. The case of the petitioners is that the first meeting of the Municipality came to be held on 21. 1. 2000 and therefore their statutory term as the councillor of the Municipality is for a period of five years which would expire in January, 2005. The petitioners in their capacity as councillors subsequently were also elected as the members of the Planning Committee which is required to be constituted as per Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the T. P. Act" ). The petitioners alleged that on account of the fact that they are belonging to Cong. I party and the party in power at the Statelevel is belonging to BJP, out of political vendetta, at the instance of respondent No. 5 who is the leader of BJP, as alleged by the petitioners, a show cause notice was issued by the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat state-respondent No. 2 herein on the allegation that the petitioners in the capacity as members of Planning Committee have granted various illegal permissions for construction and they have not taken steps for prohibiting the illegal constructions and therefore they have committed misconduct and therefore they were called upon to submit explanation as to why they should not be removed as the members of the Municipality under section 37 of the Act. On 16. 1. 2002 the petitioner No. 1 preferred Special Civil Application No. 311/02 and the petitioner Nos 2 to 5 preferred Spl. C. A. No. 2130/02 before this court challenging the show cause notice issued by the second respondent herein. This court in both these petitions initially issued notice observing that it will be open to the petitioners to raise all legal contentions available to them under law and it was also observed that the respondent No. 2 shall decide the matter and dispose of in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners within two months. It was also observed by this court that if any order adverse to the petitioners is passed, the petitioners will be at liberty to move this court for making necessary amendment and the said adverse order which may be passed by the authority shall not be executed/implemented for a period of two weeks thereafter to enable the petitioners to pursue legal recourse available under law. It is the case of the petitioners that on 6. 2. 02 the petitioners applied to the Chief Officer of the Municipality to supply of copies of certain resolutions since the petitioners wanted to submit their reply to the show cause notice, dated 27. 12. 2001. However, on 8. 2. 2002 the Chief Officer of the Municipality intimated to one of the petitioners, namely, Bhagwandas that the record is with the Collector, Mehsana and therefore the copy may be obtained from the office of the Collector, Mehsana. The case of the petitioners is that on 14. 2. 2002 they submitted an application to the Collector, Mehsana for