JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent-State and Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Sanchela waives service of rule for the respondent nos.3 to 19.

2. Since both these petitions raising identical issue involved in Special Civil Application No.5286 of 2022, learned advocates for the respective parties have requested the Court to take up these petition for final disposal, as the same are substantially covered with the issue of Special Civil Application No.5286 of 2022. Accordingly, the Court, upon request, has taken up both these petitions for final disposal.

3. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that Special Civil Application No.5286 of 2022 was filed in connection with the same issue. The motion of no confidence, which was challenged before the Regional Commissioner by the members, who had voted in the no confidence motion has been dealt with and disposed of by separate order, whereas the present petitioners are the President and Vice President respectively of the very municipality viz. Aamod Municipality against whom motion of no confidence was moved.

4. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the motion of no confidence against the petitioners, who are elected as President and Vice President, respectively.

5. It is a case where the election of Aamod Municipality consisting of 24 members was held and the result of the election thus, held was declared by the notification dated 02.03.2021. The election of the President and Vice President was held on 17.03.2021 and one Maheshbhai Dhulabhai Patel and Ushaben Sureshbhai Patel came to be elected as President and Vice President, respectively. The motion of no confidence was moved by 12 members against the President and Vice President of Aamod Municipality on 09.02.2022 invoking Section 36(1) of the Act.

6. On such motion, a special general meeting came to be conveyed on 03.03.2022 as per Section 51(2) of the Act for which a notice dated 25.02.2022, as provided under the Act came to be issued. In the special general meeting conveyed on 03.03.2022, all 24 members had remained present and the motion of no confidence came to be passed purportedly by raising a fingers and 17 members purportedly supported the motion of no confidence, and therefore, the motion of no confidence was treated to have been passed with 2/3 majority.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that considering the date on which the petitioners have assumed the office along with other members of the municipalities, the motion of no confidence was not maintainable in view of the pronouncement of this Court in case of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2019 (2) GLR 865 and also in view of an unreported decision in case of Narenbhai Gunvantlal Jayaswal Vs. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.1994 of 2021.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that the motion of no confidence came to be supported by 17 councilors out of 24 councilors. However, the figure of 17 councilors supporting the no confidence was arrived at on account of misconception, where 2(two) members of the municipality out of 17 had put up their case that under a mistaken belief they had actually raised their hands in support of the petitioners not realizing that the raising of the hand was for the purpose of supporting the motion of no confidence in the petitioners, and therefore, affidavit in this regard is also placed on record.

9. Learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the judgment of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel (supra)may not apply with full force to the facts of the present case considering the fact that the Division Bench was examining the provisions regarding no confidence motion in connection with the Gujarat Panchayats Act, and therefore, where the provisions in the present case being under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, where the specific