ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M. Iqbal A. Shaikh for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani for respondent No.1. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that petitioners are elected members of Mahemdabad Taluka Panchayat. Election was held in December, 2015. The terms of President and Vice-President of the said Taluka Panchayat was over and therefore meeting was held on 13.06.2018 for conducting election of President and Vice-President. It is contended that no whip was issued by the Bhartiya Janta Party at the time of filing nomination form for the post of President and Vice-President. In the meeting which was held on 15.06.2018, petitioner No.1 – Savitriben Chauhan was elected as the President. In the said meeting, petitioner No.2 and other three members remained absent. Thereafter, meeting of the Taluka Panchayat was called on 16.07.2018 and in the said meeting, petitioner No.2 was elected as Chairman of Executive Committee of Taluka Panchayat.

3. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 filed Dispute Application No.42 of 2018 under the provisions of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 with a prayer that four opponents stated in the said application including the present petitioners be disqualified as they have not followed the whip issued by the authorized person of the concerned political party. It is submitted that the hearing of the said application was concluded on 11.02.2019. However, on the very same day, the President of Bhartiya Janta Party of Kheda District addressed a letter to respondent No.1 – Designated Officer, wherein, it has been specifically stated that the concerned political party has condoned the act of the petitioners and therefore now no action is to be taken against the petitioners and other two members. Learned advocate has referred the said communication, which is placed at page 124 of the compilation. Thereafter, learned advocate for the petitioners has referred the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, copy of which is placed on record at page 125 of the compilation, wherein it has been stated that he is withdrawing the application filed against the opponent Nos. 1 to 3. Said affidavit was filed on 04.04.2019. Thus, it is submitted that petitioners were under the bona fide belief that now the alleged act of breach of whip issued by the political party by the present petitioners has been condoned by the said political party and the application has been withdrawn by the respondent No.2. However, surprisingly, without informing the petitioners, another affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1, wherein, he has stated that he is withdrawing the application qua original opponent nos. 3 and 4 only. Thus, the application filed by the respondent No.2 has been dismissed by the respondent No.1 qua original opponent Nos. 3 and 4 only. It is submitted that so far as present petitioners i.e. original opponent nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners after the letter dated 11.02.2019 as well as affidavit dated 04.04.2019, on the basis of further affidavit dated 17.06.2019, copy of which is placed on record at page 128 of the compilation, now the present petitioners are disqualified. Thus, learned advocate submits that issue involved in the present petition requires consideration. It is also pointed out at this stage that petitioners filed separate application being Civil Application No.1 of 2019 as after issuance of notice in the petition election programme is declared and therefore if the interim relief as prayed for is not granted in the present petition, petition filed by the petitioners would become infructuous. It is, therefore, urged that interim relief as prayed for be granted.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on the judgment dated 04.02.2010 passed