( 1 ) IN instant reference made at the instance of the learned. single Judge, two questions arise for consideration of the Larger Bench, namely, (1) whether the words "or of any disgraceful conduct" occurring in Sec. 37 (1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (the Act for short), are referable to misconduct committed by a Councillor or President or Vice-President, with the words "in the discharge of his duties", and (2) whether a Councillor, even if elected as a Member of a Committee, should be treated as a Councillor alone for the purposes of Sec. 37 of the Act as Sec. 37 of the Act does not recognise a Chairman or a Member of any committee as a separate class.

( 2 ) ). In order to answer the above-referred to issues, it would be necessary to notice the relevant facts in brief. 2. 1 In the year 1999, the petitioner was elected as a Municipal Councillor of Dabhoi Municipality, which is impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the petition. He was also appointed as a Member of Malaria Committee of the Municipality. Some complaints were received against the conduct/behaviour of the petitioner. According to the complaints, the petitioner had gone to a pumping station and picked up quarrel with the superior field worker one Shri Sanjaykumar Inamdar. He had also used filthy language and threatened to hit him. As per the complaints, earlier also the petitioner had behaved in a similar manner with one Shri A. B. Amin, who was then holding the post of Malaria Inspector. Further, as per the complaints, the petitioner had frequently gone to the residence of the President of the Municipality who was a lady living alone, and abused her as well as behaved in an indisciplined manner. On receipt of the complaints a notice dated August 31, 2000 was issued upon the petitioner under Sec. 37 of the Act, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Municipal Councillor. The notice was replied by the petitioner on December 4, 2000. The petitioner was also given an opportunity of personal hearing. After holding inquiry against the petitioner, the Director of Municipalities, who is impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the petition, passed an order dated December 14, 2000 removing the petitioner from the office of Councillor against which Special Civil Application No. 370 of 2001 is directed2. 2 At the time of hearing of the petition it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not supplied copy of the reports of the Deputy Collector and the Collector, which have been referred to and relied upon by the Competent Authority while passing the order, and therefore, the order removing the petitioner from the office of Councillor having been made in violation of principles of natural justice was liable to be set aside. The said contention has been rejected by the learned single Judge by holding that the reports of the Deputy Collector and the Collector were in fact not relied upon by the Competent Authority and that the reports being preliminary reports were not required to be supplied to the petitioner. 2. 3 The second contention which was urged on behalf of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that the words "or of any disgraceful conduct" occurring in Sec. 37 of the Act have reference only to the discharge of duties either by a Councillor or President or Vice-President, as the case may be, and as it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is guilty of any disgraceful conduct in discharge of his duties as a Councillor, he could not have been removed from the office of the Councillor. The learned single Judge noticed that in Chimanbhai R. Patel v. Anand Municipality and Ors. , 1983 (1) glr 67, a Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that a person who misconducts himself or conducts himself in a disgraceful manner while performing his duties as a President or a Chairman of a Committee constituted by the municipality under the Act, can be removed f