Point of Law: If Sarapnach fails to call such meeting, the Secretary of the panchayat shall forthwith make a report thereof the competent authority and thereupon the competent authority shall call a meeting of the panchayat within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the report

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Brijesh Trivedi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ishan Joshi, for the respondent - State through video conference.

2. By this petition under 227 of Article the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(a) to allow this petition with costs and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, enjoining upon the respondents Nos.1 to 3, that the removal of the petitioner as Sarpanch is illegal and that he continues as Sarpanch of Talati-cum-Mantri, Valukad/Juna Padar Juth Gram Panchayat, also known as Valukad Juth Gram Panchayat, Taluka Ghogha, District Bhavnagar;

(b) to kindly interim relief to the effect that the petitioner continues as Sarpanch of Talati-cum-Mantri, Valukad/Juna Padar Gram Panchayat, also, known as Valukad Juth Gram Panchayat, Taluka Ghogha, District Bhavnagar, until the final disposal of the present petition, pending admission and the final disposal of this petition;

(c) to grant such further and other reliefs, as may be deemed to be just and proper.”

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Village Valukad Juth Gram Panchayat in the election held in the year 2017 No Confidence Motion' was moved against the petitioner under Section 56 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short “the Act, 1993”) by 8 members of the Panchayat on 24th July, 2020.

3.1 The meeting of the panchayat was held on 10th August, 2020 in which out of 13 elected members i.e. 12 members and the petitioner remained present and 9 members voted in favour of the 'No Confidence Motion' and therefore, the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch as per Section 56 of the Act, 1993.

3.2 The petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application no.10331 of 2020. However, the petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file alternative remedy by filing appropriate proceedings challenging the resolution passed by the Panchayat.

3.3 The petitioner thereafter, preferred applications dated 3rd September, 2020 and 21st September, 2020 before the District Panchayat. However, such applications were not entertained by the District Panchayat as no proceedings would lie before it under Section 249 of the Act, 1993 for suspension of the No Confidence Motion in view of the decision in case of Gitaben Rathva Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application no.10079 of 2009. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order for removal from the post of Sarpanch before this Court by preferring this petition.

4. This Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri), passed the following order on 21st October, 2020 :

“1. Heard Mr.Brijesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner.

2. According to Mr.Brijesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner, the order passed by respondent No.2 is not only unjust and arbitrary but, suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. It has been submitted that though pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 31.8.2020 reflecting on page 31 of petition compilation, a substantive appeal has been filed on 2.9.2020 along with Civil Application for seeking interim relief, however, without examining the contentions raised in the appeal as well as interim relief application, a cryptic order is passed without assigning any cogent reason. According to Mr.Brijesh Trivedi, learned advocate, the resolution which has been passed with respect to no confidence motion is absolutely politically motivated and only with a view to see that the grievance voiced out by the petitioner against the misdeeds of some of the members, the petitioner is made victim of it. It has been submitted that though apparently, the resolution is passed by 2/3rd majority but, the same is also passed in an irregular manner and that is the reason why the petitioner is demanding the videography clip so as to make effect