G.B. Shah, J.

1. In view of the facts of both the captioned petitions are similar, the same are heard and decided together by this common judgment.

2. The petitions have been moved praying for following common prayers:

12 A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;

B) Your Lordships may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 04/03/2014 issued by the Taluka Development Officer, Gariyadhar Taluka Panchayat being ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, improper, politically motivated and de hors the provisions of the law in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

C) Your Lordships may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the disqualification proceedings viz. Application Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 21, 22 and 23 of 2013 expeditiously and within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Hon'ble Court to meet with the ends of justice;

D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein not to convene the meeting dated 18/03/2014 to consider the No Confidence Motion proposed on 12/02/2014 to meet with the ends of justice;

in the alternate;

Your Lordships may be pleased to direct that in the event of convening of meeting of Gariyadhar Taluka Panchayat for consideration of Motion of No Confidence against the petitioner, the vote that may be cast by respondent nos. 4 to 6 shall be kept in a sealed cover separately and the same shall not be opened until further orders are recorded by this Hon'ble Court;

E) Any other and further relief/s as deem fit in the facts and the circumstances may kindly be granted.

3. Heard Mr. P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1.

4. Facts leading to the controversy involved in the matters are such that on 29/07/2013, Agenda for holding the 10th General Board Meeting of Gariyadhar Taluka Panchayat (for short 'the panchayat'), to be held on 13/08/2013 at 14:00 hours, came to be issued. Mr. R.C. Faldu, President of Gujarat State Bhartiya Janta Party (for short 'the BJP President') issued Mandate. On 13/08/2013 i.e. the day on which, the aforesaid meeting was scheduled, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 abstained from the meeting though the mandate was served by respondent No. 3. On 19/08/2013, Agenda for 11th General Board Meeting of Gariyadhar Taluka Panchayat, to be held on 07/09/2013 at 14:00 hours to consider the No Confidence Motion against the President and the Vice President, came to be issued and the BJP President, on 02/09/2013, issued Mandate asking all the eight members of the panchayat to compulsorily remain present in the said meeting and to vote against the Motion of No Confidence. One Kirtigiri Valamgiri Gosai, a member of the panchayat, preferred application Nos. 21, 22 and 22 of 2013 separately against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 respectively, before the competent authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Defection Act'). In the meeting held on 07/09/2013, Whip was read out. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6, though the Whip was served, flouted the same and voted in favour of No Confidence Motion. However, the said Motion for No Confidence failed for want of 2/3rd majority. Again Kirtigiri Valamgiri Gosai preferred application Nos. 8, 9 and 10 against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 respectively before the respondent No. 1 herein for holding them disqualified. Pe