A.J. Shastri, J. - (1.)By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"11(A) Admit this petition.

(B) Allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent dtd. 18/9/2020.

(C) Allow this petition by declaring the no confidence motion passed against the petitioners as invalid, as there was a clear breach of statutory provision.

(D) Grant the interim relief by allowing the petitioners to work in the capacity of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch respectively, pending admission and till final disposal of this petition.

(E) Grant the interim relief by restraining the respondent and his officers, agents and servants from taking charge of the respective post of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch from the petitioners/

(F) .....

(G) ...."

(2.)The case of the petitioners in brief is that six members of Gram Panchayat i.e. Chanchelav Gram Panchayat moved no confidence motion against the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch on 20/8/2020. According to the petitioners, thereafter the meeting was convened as provided by law. As a result of which, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat reported the same to the respondent vide communication dtd. 31/8/2020. On 4/9/2020, the respondent fixed the date of the meeting by appointing Taluka Panchayat Officer, Shri H.G. Gohil, as Presiding Officer. During the course of meeting, the petitioners objected to the procedure, however, the Presiding Officer, accepted the applications, but did not pay any attention and proceeded to complete the process of meeting.
2.1. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Minutes Book (Resolution Book) reflects that on 14/9/2020, when the General Meeting was convened for discussion of no confidence motion against the petitioners, all the members were present. Motion against petitioner no. 1 was moved against the Sarpanch which was passed by absolute majority, whereas, Motion No. 2 relates to Deputy Sarpanch, which also came to be passed in similar manner. Seven members of the Panchayat voted in favour of no confidence motion and thereby Resolution came to be passed with majority. By raising contention that no confidence motion was passed in the meeting, erroneously and the nature of vote given by each member is not in consonance with the law required and by referring to Rule 20(1) of the Rules, a request is made to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. It is submitted in the petition that the development work has been undertaken by the petitioners, but somehow, without considering such or appreciating the same, the process of no confidence motion against the petitioners is concluded. Despite mandatory procedure required to be observed of Rule 20(2) of the Rules, on WhatsApp, a notice was forwarded and as such, according to the petitioners, it is a serious breach. Hence, by referring to the relevant provisions, the petitioners have approached this Court earlier by filing Special Civil Application No. 12463 of 2020, but the same was withdrawn with a view to avail alternative remedy by preferring an appeal. Accordingly, after disposal of the said petition, an appeal under Sec. 242 of the Act was preferred on 17/10/2020. But in view of the decision delivered by the Full Bench of this Court, said appeal being not maintainable, was not entertained, by virtue of communication to the petitioners on 10/11/2020, hence, the petitioners are left with no other alternative, but to prefer the present petition.

(3.)With the aforesaid background, the petition has come up for consideration and after issuance of notice vide order dtd. 16/12/2020, learned advocate Mr. Pradip J. Patel, has received instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent and filed also an affidavit-in-reply by producing relevant documents and since the pleadings are completed in the present proceedings, the learned advocates have jointly requested the Court to take up the matter for hearing.