( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP appears for Respondent No. 1 and waives service of notice of Rule. Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel appearing with Mr. Gajendra Singh for Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner was formerly holding the office of the President of Devgadh Baria Taluka Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the "panchayat" for short ). On 25. 8. 2003, 14 elected members of the Panchayat submitted a motion of no-confidence against the President and Vice-President of Taluka Panchayat. It appears that after the motion was submitted, the petitioner proceeded on leave on 1. 9. 2003 and it is the case of the Taluka Development Officer that the meeting was required to be held for considering the motion of no-confidence and, therefore, the agenda was issued and the copy of the agenda was also affixed at the residence of the petitioner. However, as per the petitioner, the said place was not the residence of the petitioner and the petitioner was at the relevant point of time in hospital and it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the meeting which was scheduled for considering the motion of no-confidence. There is no dispute on the point that on 24. 9. 2003, the motion of no-confidence was carried by 2/3rds majority and the said motion was carried against the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was not served with the agenda, she was deprived of remaining present in the meeting and of addressing the house when the motion was to be considered and, therefore, it has been submitted that prejudice is caused to the petitioner by non-service of the agenda and, therefore, the motion which was carried out by 2/3rds majority of the Taluka Panchayat is illegal.

( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner preferred revision before the State Government under Section 259 of the GUJARAT PANCHAYATS ACT, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" for short), the Secretary exercising power of the State Government partly allowed the revision by observing that the petitioner will have the remedy of preferring appeal under Section 249 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and it was further observed that if such appeal is preferred under Section 249 (4) of the Act, until the appeal is finally decided the post of the President of Taluka Panchayat should not be filled up. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition challenging the order passed by the State Government in revisional jurisdiction as well as the resolution passed by the Panchayat in its meeting dated 24. 9. 2003, whereby the motion of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner.

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. S. K. Jhaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP appearing for the State Authorities and Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel appearing with Mr. Gajendra Singh for the District Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat and Taluka Development Officer.

( 5 ) MR. JHAVERI, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the first contention that as the agenda was not served upon the petitioner, the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to address the house and to attend the meeting and, therefore, a prejudice is caused to the petitioner and, therefore, under these circumstances the State Government ought to have entertained the revision. Section 70 of the Act which is relevant for the consideration reads as under:"70. MOTION of no confidence - (1) Any member who intends to move a motion of no confidence against the President or Vice-President may give a notice thereof in the prescribed form to the panchayat. If the notice is supported by such number of members as may be prescribed, the motion may be moved. (2) if the motion is carried by a majority of no