1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the respondent Development Commissioner (Annexure A) superseding the Lakhani Taluka Panchayat for a period of six months from the date of publication of the notification in the Government Gazette, exercising the powers conferred under subsection 1 of Section 253 of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as “the said Act”).

2. The chronology of events may be stated as under:

2.1. The petitioner were declared elected as the members of the Lakhani Taluka Panchayat on 26.02.2018. There were total 22 seats in the said Panchayat out of which 11 members belonged to the Indian National Congress Party and 11 members belonged to the Bharatiya Janta Party. The petitioner no. 1 came to be declared as the President by draw of lots and one Gnagaben Sureshkumar Patel came to be declared as Vice President of the said Panchayat, as per the minutes of the meeting dated 12.03.2018.

2.2. The meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat was called on 28.03.2018 for which the agenda was issued by the petitioner no. 1 as the President of the Panchayat. One of the items of the agenda was to pass the annual budget of the Panchayat.

2.3. During the course of the meeting on 28.03.2018, 21 members were present and the first two agenda items were unanimously passed, however the agenda item No. 3 with regard to approval of the budget could not be passed as some of the members raised objections.

2.4. According to the petitioners, the said agenda item No. 3 was passed and thereafter agenda item no. 4 was cancelled and the petitioner No. 1 had declared the meeting to be over, and walked out of the meeting room along with other 9 members.

2.5. However, the Vice President continued the meeting with the remaining 11 members and passed the resolution that the budget was not approved.

2.6. The petitioner No. 1 therefore preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 5 of 2018 before the Appeal Committee i.e. the District Panchayat, Banaskantha challenging the action of the Vice President in continuing with the meeting and passing the resolution. Initially, the appellate committee granted as-interim stay vide order dated 30.03.2018, however subsequently dismissed the appeal on 11.05.2018 on the ground of being not maintainable.

2.7. In the meantime the Development Commissioner, the respondent herein issued a Notice on 02.05.2018 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 253 of the said Cat calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the Panchayat should not be superseded on the ground that the budget was not passed.

2.8. The petitioners therefore approached this Court challenging the said show cause notice by way of petition being Special Civil Application No. 7971 of 2018. the said petition came to be dismissed by the Court as not pressed for by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, vide order dated 20.06.2018.

2.8. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter appeared before the respondent Development Commissioner on 23.07.2018 as the representative of 10 members and requested to grant adjournment to engage an Advocate. The respondent therefore adjourned the hearing to 07.08.2018. On 07.08.2018, the learned Advocate Mr. K.H.Brahmbhatt on behalf of 12 members of the Panchayat had remained present and submitted 12 Affidavits duly notarized, in support of the resolution of the Panchayat not approving the budget. However the petitioner No. 1 sent a letter requesting the respondent to adjourn the hearing on the ground that his brother was operated. The respondent rejected the said request and proceeded with the hearing of the said proceedings in respect of the Show Cause Notice. The respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2018 superseding the Panchayat for a period of six months from the date of publication of the notification in the Government Gazette, exercising the powers conferred under Section 253 read with Section 138(4) of the said Act