M. R. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE, Shri H. S. Munshaw, Learned advocate waives rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and 3. Shri P. J. Patel, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the District Development officer, Gandhinagar dated 16. 8-2004 in cancelling the election of the President of the Taluka Panchayat, Gandhinagar, ( 3 ) THE petitioners are the elected members of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar. The first meeting of the taluka Panchayat, Gandhinagar was convened on 12. 8,2004 for the purpose of election of the President of the Taluka panchayat,. The petitioner No. 1 contested the election of the President of the Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar. One Thakore kacharaji Babaji also contested the election for the post of President, of the Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar. The election took place on 12. 8. 2004 and the petitioner No. l herein secured 17 votes and another candidate Thakore Kacharaji Babaii got 12 votes. The strength of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar is 29 and therefore, the petitioner No. l was declared to be elected as President of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar. It seems that in the said meeting, the President of the Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar and one MLA were present. The Taluka Development Officer made a report to the District Development officer under Section 63 (8) of the Gujarat panchayat Act, 1993 on the basis of the objections raised by the defeated member as well as the members other than the petitioners objecting to the presence of the aforesaid two persons and on the basis of the same, the District Development Officer has passed, an order on 16. 8. 2004 cancelling the election of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar by holding that in the meeting. it was not permissible for the President of- the District Panchayat as well as MLA to remain present and therefore, the meeting which was convened and held was contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Taluka and district Panchayat (Vice President and president) Rules, 1994. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Development officer, Gandhinagar, dated 16. 8. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Development officer, Gandhinagar, dated 16. 8. 2004, the petitioner members of the Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar, 17 in number have preferred the present Special Civil application under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 5 ) SHRI Tushar Mehta, Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the Impugned order passed by the District Development Officer, gandhinagar, dated 16. 8. 2004 is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that before the cancelling of the election of the President of the Taluka Panchayat i. e. election of the petitioner No. l as President of Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar, opportunity of being heard is not given to the petitioners, and straightaway relying upon the report submitted by the Taluka Development officer, the Impugned order has been passed. He has further submitted that in fact, the copy of the report submitted by the Taluka development Officer is also not given to the petitioners and therefore, he requested to allow the present Special Civil Application. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Shri P. J. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that in fact, some prejudice was required to be shown by the petitioners and the petitioners are required to show that by not giving any opportunity, what prejudice has been caused to them. He has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, opportunity of hearing was not required to be given by the District Development Officer, gandhinagar. Shri H. S. Munshaw, Learned advocate appearing, for the District development, Officer has fairly conceded that before passing the impugned order dated 16. 8. 2004, opportunity was not given to the petitioners, more particularly, the petitioner no. 1 who was declared as elected President of the Taluka, Panchayat, Gandhinagar. However, he has submitted that while passing the order dated 16. 8. 2004, the district Development Officer has considered the report submitted by the Taluka development Officer dated 16. 8. 2004 and the application submitted by the respondent no. 5. ( 7 ) HEARD the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf, of the parties. ( 8 ) THE petitioners are elected members of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar. They are 17 in number, in all there are 29 members, so majority of the members are joined as petitioners. 8. 2004 and the application submitted by the respondent no. 5. ( 7 ) HEARD the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf, of the parties. ( 8 ) THE petitioners are elected members of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar. They are 17 in number, in all there are 29 members, so majority of the members are joined as petitioners. The petitioner No. l came to be elected as president of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar and he was declared as elected also. Under the circumstances, when the election of the President of the Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar, more particularly, the petitioner No. l is cancelled, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given and they were required to show cause why the election of the Taluka Panchayat, gandhinagar should not be set aside. In the present case, as no opportunity is given, the impugned order, dated 16. 8. 2004 is in utter violation of the principles; of natural justice. Under the circumstances, it is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 16. 8. 2004 passed by the District development Officer, Gandhinagar setting aside the election of the President of the taluka Panchayat by which the petitioner was declared elected as President of Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar is hereby quashed and set aside. It will be open for the District development Officer, Gandhinagar to pass an appropriate order for giving an opportunity to the petitioner who was declared to be elected President of Taluka panchayat, Gandhinagar. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the impugned order is set aside only on the ground that the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .