S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J.

1. In this group of four petitions the petitioners, who happened to be Councillors of Rajpipla Municipality and who have alleged to have resigned, have approached this Court by way of these petitions challenging the Communication dated 09.08.2018 of the Chief Officer, respondent no.3, to the Election Commission calling upon the Commission to initiate bi-election proceedings for those vacancies said to have arisen on account of so called resignations of the petitioners.

2. As the entire issue pertains to a question as to whether during the pendency of the adjudication before the competent authority in respect of the dispute regarding resignation, can the vacancies said to have arisen on account thereof, be treated vacancies warrant initiation of bi-election proceedings ? Hence, all the matters heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, at the request of learned counsels for the parties. The formality of Rule is required to be completed, hence, Rule. Learned AGP waves service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, learned counsel Shri Vaghela waves service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.3 and Ms. Roopal R. Patel, waves service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.4. Rule is fixed forthwith at the request of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

3. The common facts in all these petitions, shorn off undue details and deserving for appreciating the controversy only, needs to be set out as under.

4. In the last general election of Rajpipla Municipality, the petitioners were elected from the respective wards mentioned in the petitions and they were thereafter functioning as such. The first meeting of the newly elected Councillors of Rajpipla was held on December 15, 2015. The term of the President and Vice-president of the Municipality was expiring on June 14, 2018. It was averred in the memo of petition that in the first meeting itself, without knowledge the signatures were obtained in the blank papers, which was sought to be utilized to bring about desired voting from such Councillors and as such they were threatened to be removed by using those blank papers as their resignations. Apprehending this, the petitioners moved Special Civil Application No.8650 of 2018, which was required to be withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh petition in the event of the apprehension which was expressed by the petitioners in that petition came to be correct. The said withdrawal was permitted by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2018, which is produced in the memo of these petitions also. The petitioners’ apprehension came true, as the blank papers which were utilized for converting them into resignations were used and on that basis the petitioners-councillors’ seats were sought to be brought to an end. The Chief Officer sent a communication dated 09.08.2018 impugned in this petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied therewith, the present petitions have been laid inter alia contending that when the competent authority is in seisin of the entire facts and examining the dispute qua resignations and their genuineness, there was no reason to either the Chief Officer or the Election Authorities in precipitating the bi-election proceedings so as to scuttle the very scrutiny at the end of the adjudicating authority. The petitioners have in fact approached the authority vide their respective applications which are called appeals and the adjudicating authority in seisin thereof.

5. This Court initially passed the order on 21.08.2018, which deserves to be set out as under:

“Learned counsel Mr.Mangukiya for the petitioner invited Court’s attention to the provisions of Section 35(5) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and submitted that the dispute as envisaged thereunder qua the factum of resignation of the petitioner is already pending before the Competent Officer I.e. Collector. As the same was referred to him way back on 25.6.2018 and as per the provisi