- (1.)By way of this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"8(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application;

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the Respondent Authorities by quashing and setting the bifurcation notification dtd. 30/6/2020 (Annexure-A);

(C ) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ order or direction, to the Respondent Authorities by quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 10/7/2020 (Annexure-B);

(D) Pending, admission and final hearing be pleased to stay execution and implementation of the steps and process of the order dtd. 30/6/2020 (Annexure-A);

(E) Pending admission and final hearing be pleased to stay execution and implementation of the steps and process of the Order dtd. 10/7/2020 (Annexure-B);

(F) Grant ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (D) and (E)'

(G) Your Lordship be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice."

(2.)The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 1 has issued Notification dtd. 30/6/2020 by virtue of which Maghasar Gram Panchayat has been bifurcated into two new Gram Panchayats namely Maghasar Gram Panchayat and Gate Muvala Gram Panchayat and consequently issued Notification on 10/7/2020 for appointing Administrator to take charge of Maghasar Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioner, on 30/10/2018, the Gram Sabha of Maghasar Gram Panchayat purportedly passed a Resolution to bifurcate Maghasar Gram Panchayat into two separate Gram Panchayats as stated above, which was moved with the signature of respondent no. 5 having no authority. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any meeting of Gram Sabha was held on 30/10/2018 nor any Resolution to bifurcate is passed to that effect. This information is received by the petitioner through Right to Information application dtd. 19/8/2018, whereby respondent no. 5 has admitted that on 13/10/2018, no such Resolution came to be passed.
2.1. The petitioner has further stated that on 21/12/2018, Maghasar Gram Panchayat received an application from the resident of Gate Muvala village requesting not to bifurcate Maghasar Gram Panchayat. Considering the said application, a Resolution came to be passed on 28/12/2018 in the General Meeting held by the Panchayat, Thereafter on 15/12/2018, respondent no. 5 according to the petitioner forwarded fraudulently the application to respondent no. 4 requesting to bifurcate Maghasar Gram Panchayat and same in turn was forwarded to respondent no. 3. Thereafter on 15/2/2019, respondent no. 3 vide his letter intimated to respondent no. 4 about several defects from the said application and called upon respondent no. 4 to provide justification for the said defects. According to the petitioner, on 15/12/2018, Halol Taluka Panchayat in Special General Meeting presided over by the leader, passed Resolution to forwarded proposal for bifurcation of Maghasar Gram Panchayat to the District Panchayat and aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 4897 of 2019 before this Court, challenging the said Resolution dtd. 15/12/2019. Simultaneously, another Special Civil Application No. 8461 of 2020 also came to be filed, based upon such averments, the Court was pleased to issue notice upon the authority, but on account of technical defects about maintainability of the petition, the said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and while disposal of the said petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in her individual capacity with all rights and contentions kept open, it is under this circumstance, the present petition is brought before the Court. Pursuant to the notice having been issued on 7/4/2021 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, an affidavit-in-reply as well as rejoinder is filed and since the pleadings were completed, both the learned advocates have requested the Court to take up the matter for hearing.

(3.)Learned advocate Mr. Anuj Dave appearing for the petitioner has raised multiple contentions, but in substance, the main contention is that there is non compliance of Sec. 7(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and consultation of the Taluka Panchayat being mandatory, without the same, it is not open to take such kind of decision. It has been submitted that there is a clear defiance of the procedure established by law by virtue of Sec. 7(2) of the Act and as a result of this, the Notification as well as consequential direction deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3.1. To substantiate his contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision delivered by this Court in the case of Pruthvinsinh Amarsinh Chauhan v. K.D. Rawat reported in 2004 (0) AIHC 3241 = [(2005) 4 GLR 2932] and has submitted that in absence of any meaningful consultation with the Taluka Panchayat, the decision to bifurcate and to entrust the affairs to the Administrator is quite contrary to the mandate of Statute. It has been further submitted that the Resolutions which have been passed in the present proceedings are not valid resolutions and there are serious disputes about such resolutions and according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, a fraudulent resolution came to be passed with a view to see that the bifurcation can take place. The Resolution one of such is brought to the notice of the Court whereby, it emerges that only Talati-cum-Mantri has put the signature and not the Sarpanch. Further the meeting which has been presided over on 15/12/2019 is presided over by the Hon'ble Minister which is otherwise impermissible and for that purpose, page 78 is brought to the notice of the Court and by referring to this Resolution and documents in substance, a contention is raised that there is hardly any need to bifurcate the Panchayat in any manner and as such, has requested to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has further submitted that similar petition which was withdrawn was on account of technical defect about the maintainability issue, which has nothing to do with the present petition inasmuch as, all rights and contentions have been kept open and as such, the said disposal of the petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to agitate the issue as raised in the petition.

3.2. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has further strenuously relied upon the averments made in para (F) at running page 10 to contend that there is no meaningful consultation as required under Sec. 7 of the Act, but in view of the facts which are stated on record are seriously disputed question of facts and candidly the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Court cannot be called upon to examine such disputed version, but has reiterated the contention that there is no compliance of Sec. 7(2) of the Act and that being so, the petition deserves to be entertained.