BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTG.C.J.-By this writ petition, the writ petitioners, two in number, one being a Sarpanch against whom a notice of 'no-confidence' has been issued and the other, a citizen of India, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, have challenged the provisions of Sec. 56 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ('the Act', hereinafter) as 'ultra vires' the Constitution of India. The challenge is limited only to the case of a Sarpanch under the Scheduled Caste category elected in the reserved office of Sarpanch.

2. The case made out by the writ-petitioners may be summed up thus:

2.1. A Notification for constitution of Kob Gram Panchayat was issued on December 10, 2011. Election Notification and the programme for Gram Panchayat election were also issued on December 10, 2011. The petitioner No. 1 contested the election for the office of Sarpanch of village Kob reserved for Scheduled Caste and he was declared duly elected.

2.2. For completing the constitution of Kob Gram Panchayat, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened under the notice dated January 10, 2012. The petitioner No. 1 being the Smpanch, presided over the meeting, which was held on January 17, 2012, and one Bhimabhai Mensibhai Bambhaniya, the respondent No. 1 herein, was elected as Upa-Sarpanch. Thus, the procedure for the constitution of Kob Gram Panchayat was completed on January 17, 2012.

2.3. On January 18, 2012, the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 issued a notice of moving a motion of 'no-confidence' under Sec. 56(1) of the Act against the petitioner No.1 notwithstanding the fact that till then the petitioner No.1 had not performed any of the duties of the office of the Sarpanch. The said notice of 'no-confidence' was issued just because the petitioner No.1 belonged to the Scheduled Caste and he was elected by the voters of village Kob as Sarpanch.

2.4. In such circumstances, the petitioners are compelled to challenge the validity of the provisions of Sec. 56 of the Act and also the notice of motion of 'no-confidence'. According to the petitioners, the said Section, insofar as it applies to the case of reserved office of Sarpanch for Scheduled Caste, is inconsistent with and in derogation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined and guaranteed under Art. 15 (4) and also the provisions of Art. 238D(4) of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Parmar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, laboriously contended before us that the provisions of Sec. 56(1) of the Act, to the extent it dislodges the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste elected on a reserved seat as Sarpanch from the said office, is invalid being inconsistent and in derogation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution of India.

3.1. Mr. Parmar further contended that Art. 243D of the Constitution provides for reservation of seats and in consonance with such provisions, the office of Sarpanch of Kob Gram Panchayat was reserved. According to him, the Sarpanch having merely performed his mandatory duty of presiding over the first meeting called on January 17, 2012 for election of Upa-Sarpanch, the issue of notice of 'no-confidence' on the very next day by the respondent Nos.1 to 9 is violative of Art. 243D of the Constitution of India.

3.2. Mr. Parmar further contends that the aforesaid provision of the Act defeats the constitutional scheme of reservation, and in support of such contention, Mr. Parmar relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.H. Madhav Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India, reported in 1971 (1) SCC 85.

3.3. Mr. Parmar further contends that the aforesaid provision is also violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Jani, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, however, has opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Parmar and contended that the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Parmar are not tenable in the eye of law. Mr. Jani points out that out of the twelve m