ORAL ORDER

1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the designated authority i.e. respondent No.1 whereby, the petitioners were declared disqualified from holding the post of members of Tarapur Taluka Panchayat.

2. The petitioners, during the pendency of the present writ petition, have filed Civil Application No.1 of 2021, inter alia, praying for direction, declaring that upon completion of the term, for which, the applicants – petitioners were elected, has come to an end and the order of removal has lived its life, the applicants can contest the election of the local authority, if any, held in future.

3. It has been reported that the term of the elected body of the Panchayat was for 5 years and the term for which, the applicants – petitioners were elected, has come to an end in the month of December, 2020.

4. In view of the term of the petitioners, as the members of the Taluka Panchayat, having come to an end, consideration of the present writ petition is rendered academic.

5. However, Mr.C.P. Champaneri, learned advocate for the petitioners urged that as per the provisions of the Gujarat Provisions for Disqualification for Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 read with Rules of 1987, further read with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, the person can be removed from the post, if he has incurred disqualification; however, he can be re-elected even in the bye-election or the immediate next election, as there is no provision for further disqualification for remainder of the term for which, he has been removed. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mukundkumar Trikambhai Chauhan vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in 2013(1) G.L.H. 898 wherein, this Court has held in paras 12 and 13 as under:-

“12. If the contention is examined in light of the above referred legal provision, it is clear that once a person is disqualified under Anti Defection Act, the provisions of section 11(4) would apply so far as the Act is concerned and as Page 9 of 13 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 31 13:19:59 IST 2021 C/SCA/1004/2013 JUDGMENT per the Act, upon such order passed by the competent authority under the Anti Defection Act, he shall cease to hold the ofÏce. Therefore, his term no more would continue as Councillor and it would put an end of his term as Councillor. Thereafter, by virtue of the provisions of section 41, he shall be eligible for re election upon his disability ceasing. Thereafter, when he is to contest the next election, he is not contesting the election in capacity as the Councillor of the Municipality, but is contesting the election as voter simplicitor. There is no express provision made by the legislature for continuing with the disqualification under Anti Defection Act by virtue of provisions of section 11(4) like the person who has been removed from the ofÏce under section 37 for which there is a separate provision made not only for removal of ofÏce under section 37, but for a further period of four years. There is conscious omission by the legislature for future disqualification to contest the election under section 11(4) of the Act. Even under the Anti Defection Act, no provision is brought to our notice showing that after a person is disqualified under the Anti Defection Act, in future also he shall be disqualified to contest the election. So far as section 38 is concerned, it is mainly based on the effect and the interpretation of section 11 of the Act.

13. If by virtue of section 11(4), a person is not disqualified for future period, the contention based on the interpretation that until the term of the municipality is over, he will not be entitled to contest the election even for the next term cannot be accepted. If the interpretation as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 3 is accepted, the consequence would be that we will have to read the p