JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition has been taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue Rule. Mr.Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf respondent Nos.1 and 3. Learned advocate Mr.C.P. Champaneri waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.5. Though served, respondent Nos.2 and 4 have chosen not to enter appearance.

3. By this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing and setting aside the requisition dated 18.01.2021 whereby, the elected members of the Chhota Udepur Nagarpalika have forwarded a requisition for moving motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

4. The edifice on which, the requisition dated 18.01.2021 has been challenged, is, it being unconstitutional and ultra-vires Articles 14, 16 and 243 of the Constitution of India as well as against the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary vs. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited reported in (2015) 8 SCC 1 and in the case of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (2) GLR 865.

5. The facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be elected as the member of ward no.7 in the election of Chhota Udepur Nagarpalika held on 17.02.2018 and was elected as the President of the Municipality for the second term of two and half years in the meeting held on 24.08.2020. The petitioner took over the charge as per the said mandate and according to him he has been efficiently discharging the duties as the President. Within a span of less than six months, a motion came to be requested by the elected members on 18.01.2021 on the ground that the petitioner is acting single handedly in his own manner. Accordingly, the requisition was forwarded to the Director of Municipalities, Collector, Prant Officer and the Chief Officer. Being aggrieved by the said requisition moved by the members of the Municipality, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforementioned prayers.

6. Mr.Vikas Nair, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Section 36 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1963') envisages that any councilor of a municipality, who intends to move a motion of no confidence against its president or vice-president may give a notice thereof in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government to the municipality and if the notice is supported by not less than one third of the total number of the councilors of the municipality, the motion may be moved. It is submitted that however, there is no time limit provided for moving the motion of no confidence. It is submitted that the petitioner was elected as the President in the meeting held on 24.08.2020 and within a span of less than six months, on 18.01.2021, the requisition has been moved by the members of the Municipality for the motion of no confidence. It is submitted that the said requisition dated 18.01.2021 is against the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel (supra). It is submitted that this Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 56 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1993), which is in pari-materia with the provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 1963.

6.1. It is submitted that Section 56 of the Act of 1993 also provides for motion of no confidence. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Act of 1993 contemplates that any member, who intends to move a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch, may give notice thereof in the prescribed form to the panchayat concerned and if the notice is supported by one half of the total number of members of the panchayat concerned, the motion may be moved. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1993 and the other provisions suggests that there is no reasonab