ARAVIND KUMAR,J. - (1.)This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 29.9.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8520 of 2021 whereunder the challenge made to the Resolution dated 5.5.2021 passed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Sejakpur, whereby No Confidence Motion moved against the appellant herein (for the purposes of convenience, hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') came to be accepted and Special Civil Application came to be dismissed.
(2.)Brief background of the case is as under:-
2.1 Election to the Gram Panchayat, Sejakpur was held during December, 2016 in which election, petitioner contested for the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and was declared elected. Appellant was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat which term was for a period of five years i.e. till December, 2021.

2.2 Six members of the Gram Panchayat moved a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner on 26.8.2019 and said No Confidence Motion was submitted to Taluka Development Officer, who in turn, forwarded a communication dated 16.9.2019 intimating the members of the Gram Panchayat including the petitioner that a meeting had been convened on 20th September, 2019 for passing the Motion of No Confidence against the appellant. In the meeting which came to be convened on 20.9.2019 the Motion of No Confidence moved against petitioner was considered and all the members including petitioner was present at said meeting. Five members voted in favour of passing the Motion of No Confidence and four members voted against moving the Motion of No Confidence. Therefore, 1st respondent recorded that No Confidence Motion was not passed with 2/3 of the total members of Panchayat and accordingly it was recorded that Motion of No Confidence had not been passed against the petitioner.

2.3 Subsequently on 23.3.2021, another Motion for No Confidence was moved by six members of the Gram Panchayat alleging that petitioner was indulging in corruption in certain construction works. Said No Confidence Motion was forwarded by Talati-cum-Mantri to Taluka Development Officer, Chuda by communication dated 10.4.2021 stating therein that Sarpanch has to call for a meeting of Gram Panchayat for the purposes of discussion of Motion of No Confidence moved against petitioner within a period of 15 days. Taluka Development Officer issued a notice on 28.4.2021 convening the meeting of Gram Panchayat on 5.5.2021 at 11 a.m. for the purposes of discussion of No Confidence Motion. Though petitioner requested for cancellation of the meeting on account of pandemic of Covid-19 prevalent, meeting as scheduled was held on 5.5.2021 and same was discussed at item No.1 of agenda and in the said meeting, nine members including the petitioner were present, out of whom, six members voted in favour of No Confidence Motion moved against petitioner, whereas three members voted against the Motion of No Confidence. Thus, number of members voted in favour of the Motion being 2/3 of the total number of members, Motion of No Confidence was passed. Taluka Development Officer, Chuda vide communication dated 10.5.2021 addressed to Talati-cum- Mantri, Sejakpur Gram Panchayat intimated that charge of Sarpanch has been handed over to Upa-Sarpanch.

2.4 Petitioner challenged the Motion of No Confidence moved against him before Development Commissioner by filing an application on 18.5.2021 and was intimated that said application was not maintainable before Development Commissioner by communication dated 18.5.2021. Hence, Special Civil Application was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Resolution dated 5.5.2021 recording No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by arriving at a conclusion that there is due compliance of Sec. 56 of the Act in as much as the Resolution itself disclosed that petitioner though had participated in the meeting had not spoken at the meeting held on 5.5.2021 in which the No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner. Hence, this intra-court appeal has been preferred by unsuccessful petitioner.

(3.)We have heard Mr. B.M.Mangukia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Bela A. Prajapati for appellant and we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for issuance of notice and/or the appeal being admitted for the reasons indicated hereunder:-
3.1 The thrust of the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Sec. 56 of the Act mandates that Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch against whom a Motion of No Confidence is moved shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings of the meeting and learned Single Judge of this Court in Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2006(1) GLH 91 has held that the requirement of sub-section (3) of Sec. 56 is mandatory in nature and said provision had been violated as petitioner was not given opportunity to speak. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that learned Singe Judge of this Court in the case of Suvarnaben Chetanbhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 others in Special Civil Application No.13685 of 2014 disposed of on 24.12.2014 had quashed or set aside the Resolution recorded passing the Motion of No Confidence against the Sarpanch, on the ground that the Sarpanch had not been provided opportunity to address the House and in fact, the Division Bench in Ketan Laxmichand Shah Vs. Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel in Letters Patent Appeal No.1677 of 2005 by order dated 8.12.2005 had affirmed the judgment of learned Single Judge which has not been reversed or set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, as such, on the date of No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner, the judgment of Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel has held the field and thereby there is a clear violation of sub-section (3) of Section 56 of the Act in so far as the petitioner is concerned and, as such, the Resolution dated 5.5.2021 is bad in law. He would also contend that a person against whom No Confidence Motion is moved will have a right to speak and such person need not ask permission or seek leave to speak as it would be the duty of the person presiding the meeting to call upon such person against whom No Confidence Motion is moved to call upon such person to speak and in the instant case, record does not disclose that such opportunity to speak at the meeting in which the No Confidence Motion had been moved was extended to the petitioner and this by itself is sufficient to hold that there has been violation of sub-section (3) of Section 56. He would also submit that learned Single Judge committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that judgment of Geetaben's case rendered by learned Single Judge is per incuriam and learned Single Judge ought to have followed judgment of Geetaben as affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by Division Bench which was binding on the learned Single Judge. Hence, he has sought for the appeal being admitted and prayer for same being allowed by setting aside the order of learned Single Judge and consequently allowing Special Civil Application No.8520 of 2021 by setting aside the Resolution passed by Gram Panchayat dated 5.5.2021.