The court's decision was based on the finding that the petitioner had misused powers and authorities given to the local body, and there was no reason to interfere in the impugned motion of no confidence.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has mainly challenged the no confidence motion passed on 08.07.2022.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3.1 Mr. Naman Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a lady, elected as a member of the Panchayat and declared as Sarpanch on 21.12.2021 unanimously by all the elected members. He has further submitted that the charge is taken by the petitioner on 19.01.2022 and the impugned communication is moved by the members of the panchayat on 30.06.2022.

3.2 He has submitted that within a period of six months, no confidence motion against the Sarpanch – petitioner is moved by referring the provisions of Section 55 and 56 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

3.3 He has heavily relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (2) GLH 523, more particularly Para : 39 thereof and has submitted that such no confidence motion could be proposed within a span of one year irrespective of allegations against the Sarpanch.

3.4 He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.

4.1 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 – Panchayat has submitted that out of nine members, no confidence motion moved by seven members of the panchayat on 13.06.2022 and it was submitted to respondents no.2 and 3 by letter dated 13.06.2022.

4.2 He has further submitted that as the petitioner failed to take appropriate decision with regard to a date of meeting of general body of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of no confidence motion within fifteen days from 13.06.2022, the respondent no.3 addressed a letter to respondent no.2 on 28.06.2022 to take appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 56(5)(k) of the Act.

4.3 He has further submitted that thereafter, respondent no.3 has addressed a letter to respondent no.2 on 05.07.2022 for appointment of a Presiding Officer for a meeting to be held on 08.07.2022 and passing of no confidence motion against the petitioner in the said meeting and one Mr. Firoz B. Patel, Extension Officer (Panchayat), Jambusar Taluka Panchayat was appointed as presiding Officer vide order dated 07.07.2022.

4.4 He has also submitted that Taluati-cum-Mantri of the Gram Panchayat addressed a letter infomring about the proceedings of the meeting on 08.07.2022 and passing of no confidence motion. He has submitted that immediately, an order dated 12.07.2022 was passed to the effect that Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat would take over the charge of the Sarpanch in accordance with the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and thereupon, Up-Sarpanch – Mr. Vijaybhai K. Waghela took over the charge of the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat on 14.07.2022.

4.5 He has submitted that in view of the above facts, this petition may not be entertained, as the motion of no confidence is acted upon now. He has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.

5.1 Mr. Sikligar, learned advocate for the contesting respondents no.4 to 11 has, by referring to his affidavit in reply, submitted that though the petitioner was a Sarpanch, her husband was handling day-to-day affairs of the Panchayat in place of the petitioner. He has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was threatening the members and also abusing the powers. He has submitted that by putting the forge signature of the petitioner, her husband was looking to the affairs of the Panchayat. He has submitted that if such situation will continue, then interest of the Panchayat will be jeopardise.

5.2 He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhanumati Versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 7 SCR 585, more particularly Para : 72 thereof and has submitted that the petitioner should not be allowed to misuse the office through her husband and therefore, majority of the members – out of nine, seven members have supported the no confidence motion.

5.3 He has referred to the provisions of