IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2116 of 2026 ==========================================================

KRISHNABEN KAUSHIKBHAI THAPANIYA & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HARDIK D MUCHHALA(5634) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Date : 17/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners being President and Vice President of Mangrol Municipality, have called in question the legality and the validity of requisition dated 13^th January 2026 for ‘No Confidence Motion’ issued by the Chief Officer, Mangrol Nagarpalika, District : Junagarh.

[2] It is the case of the petitioner that they were elected as President and Vice President on 05^th March 2025 and diligently worked for the benefits of the Mangrol Municipality, however, just after a period of ten months of their being elected as President and Vice President, sixteen members out of thirty six have brought requisition of ‘No Confidence Motion’.

[3] Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Muchhala, for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.

Sahil Trivedi for the respondent No.1.

[4] Considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2019(2) GLR 865, more particularly, in paras 39 to 43, it is observed that motion of no- confidence in such a short time, if permitted and the Sarpanch is removed, it will be against the interest of continuity and stability of the Panchayat. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel (supra) in paras

39 to 43 are quoted hereinbelow:

“39. In view of the fact that continuity and stability of Panchayati Raj Institutions is one of the objectives of Constitutional 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, if no confidence motion is moved against elected Sarpanch immediately after election, without even permitting said elected Sarpanch to work for reasonable time to discharge his / her functions, and obligation as contemplated under section 55 of the Panchayats Act, any move for removal by way of no confidence motion immediately after election will run contrary to the spirit and object behind 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992.

40. Though the appellant is elected in the election held on 27.12.2016 by the qualified voters of Panchayat, she is sought to be removed by way of no confidence motion by the members of Panchayat barely within a period of one month from the date of declaration of election. Though no reasons are required to be mentioned for moving no confidence motion, but unless elected Sarpanch is allowed to work for reasonable time, moving no confidence motion on the allegation that members of the Panchayat have lost confidence is illegal and arbitrary. If the same is permitted, it will result in vicious circle, as much as, there is no disqualification attached once Sarpanch is removed by way of no confidence motion, unlike disqualification attached to removal as contemplated under Section 57 of the Panchayats Act. It is fairly well settled that if a person is removed by way of no confidence motion, it is neither censure motion nor punitive one and it will not attach any disqualification for future contest.

41. Once elected candidate is removed by way of no confidence motion, resulting in vacancy, again the very same person may contest and also win the immediate election. Same cannot be the scheme under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, which is enacted to bring law relating to panchayat in tune with provisions under Chapter IX of the Constitution of India.

42. Then the next question which arises is, in absence of any rest