JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court with following prayers: “(A) to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the impugned action of the respondent no.1 in initiating proceeding under Section 32(2) of the Act against the petitioner is without jurisdiction, authority of law and consequently be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2009 passed by the respondent no.1 at Annexure-A to the petition, the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the respondent no.2 at Annexure-B to the petition and the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the respondent no.3 at Annexure-C to the petition; (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition: (i) to stay the further execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 25.06.2009 pased by the respondent no.1 at Annexure-A to the petition, the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the respondent no.2 at Annexure-B to the petition and the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the respondent no.3 at Annexure-C to the petition; (ii) to restrain the respondents, their officers, agents, servants etc. in interfering the petitioner in functioning as the elected Sarpanch of Khodamali Gram Panchayat; (iii) To call for the records and proceedings of the action initiated by the respondent no.1 against the petitioner under Section 32 (2) of the Act and the Appeal No.3/2009 before the respondent no.2 and the Revision Application No.45/2009 before the respondent no.3.” Thus essentially petitioner has challenged the order dated 25/6/2009 passed by Respondent no.1 Taluka Development Officer in exercise of power under section 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1993 (herein after referred to as 'New Panchayat Act' for brevity) and order dated 30/9/2009 passed by respondent no.2, i.e. District Development Officer under section 32(2) challenging the order passed by Taluka Development Officer and also the order dated 31/3/2010 passed by the State in revision application preferred by the petitioner under section 259 of the New Panchayat Act. 2. The facts in short leading to filing this petition, as narrated by the petitioner in the memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as Elected Sarpanch of Khodamali Village and as such he was carrying out his functioning since 5/4/2007. 2. The facts in short leading to filing this petition, as narrated by the petitioner in the memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as Elected Sarpanch of Khodamali Village and as such he was carrying out his functioning since 5/4/2007. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 66 (i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and was sentenced to be in custody till the rise of the Court and fine of Rs.50/-. This conviction and sentence were awarded on 3/8/2008, i.e. during his tenure as Sarpanch of the village. Relying upon this conviction and the provisions laid under section 30(1) and 32(1) of New Panchayat Act, the concerned Taluka Development Officer has passed an order on 25/6/2009 declaring disqualified to continue as Sarpanch of the village. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with this order, appeal was preferred to District Development Officer, who in turn also held that the order passed on 25/6/2009 passed by Taluka Development Officer was just & proper and rejected the appeal vide order dated 30/9/2009. These orders were subject matter of scrutiny at the behest of the petitioner who preferred revision application under section 259 of New Panchayat Act to the State which also rejected the same vide order dated 31/3/2010. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned advocate Shri Ravindra Shah for the petitioner has invited this Court's attention to provision of section 9 as well as provision of section 30 and 32 of the Act and contended that provision of section 30 prescribing disqualification is qua the members and Panchayat only and therefore provision of section 30(1) were not available for taking any action and or declaring the petitioner to be disqualified by Taluka Development Officer as he did in order dated 25/6/2009. Learned advocate for the petitioner laid heavy reliance upon the language of section 9 and contended that the member of Panchayat and Sarpanch are the elected candidates and as such they have been treated even by legislature also. Therefore when section 9 was couched the language is eloquently clear with regard to election of member and election of Sarpanch. Learned advocate for the petitioner laid heavy reliance upon the language of section 9 and contended that the member of Panchayat and Sarpanch are the elected candidates and as such they have been treated even by legislature also. Therefore when section 9 was couched the language is eloquently clear with regard to election of member and election of Sarpanch. The Sarpanch therefore could not have been said to have incurred any disqualification on account of provision of Section 30 which prescribes disqualification as the language of section 30 describes only a member of Panchayat and it does not refer to any one which does not include Sarpanch. Said section even if it is read entirely it does not indicate anywhere that the post of Sarpanch is included there under. Learned advocate for the petitioner therefore contended that Sarpanch having been elected directly by the eligible voters vote, he could not have been declared disqualified by an officer who is only entrusted with power to deal with members as could be seen from plain reading of language of section 30 of New Panchayat Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the decision in case of Sankarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. Baroda District Panchayat & Ors., reported in 1984 (2) G.L.R. pg. 921,cited by & on behalf of respondent would be of no avail, as, on the contrary, close reading of the provision then existing in the old Panchayat Act would go to support the stand taken by the advocate for the petitioner qua non-availability of section 30 and 32 of New Panchayat Act to the post of Sarpanch. Learned advocate for the petitioner relying upon provision of section 12 of the Old Panchayat Act submitted that the language of section 12 as it stood for Gram Panchayat include that Gram Panchayat may be consisting of such member or members (include Sarpanch) not less than 7 and not more than 15, whereas in the present section 9, which pertains to constitution of Gram Panchayat, there is specific inclusion of wording “including the Sarpanch”. Therefore when the legislature in its wisdom has excluded the word Sarpanch from the membership and it is specifically mentioned that Gram Panchayat shall consist of members as prescribed in sub section (4) and that sub section (4) does not include Sarpanch, the post of Sarpanch could be said to be excluded from the purview of section 30 & 32 as the word Sarpanch is conspicuously absent there from. 4. Shri Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 & 2 contended that the submission made at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner, if taken to its logical conclusion would render the Sarpanch to be beyond the purview of disqualification prescribed in the Panchayat Act. The Panchayat Act and its provisions are to be read harmoniously so as to bring it at a logical conclusion and any reading which would render any provision absurd is required to be avoided. The omission of word 'Sarpanch' in section 30 cannot be said to be so glaring an omission as to take out the Sarpanch from the purview of disqualifications mentioned in that section, or else, said imputation would mean that the person who is interested in getting himself elected as Sarpanch, irrespective of he having incurred any disqualification mentioned in section 30 would be entitled and eligible to contest election and those qualifications would per se indicate that such a person cannot be permitted to be elected or to contest any election. Therefore the decision cited at the Bar viz. in case of Sankarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel (supra) is in fact squarely covering the present controversy and the Court may not interfere with the orders impugned. 5. At this stage Shri Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that, plain reading of section 9 would clearly show that legislature in its wisdom has consciously categorized office bearers in three stages; viz. Member, Upa-Sarpanch and Sarpanch and unlike earlier provision of section 12 they having been treated par and therefore his submission with regard to Sarpanch being not covered by provision of section 30 should be accepted. 6. This Court is of the considered view that this petition is required to be dismissed for the following reasons, namely: (a) Plain reading of section 9 of the New Act would go to show that it entirely deals with constitution of Village Panchayat. 6. This Court is of the considered view that this petition is required to be dismissed for the following reasons, namely: (a) Plain reading of section 9 of the New Act would go to show that it entirely deals with constitution of Village Panchayat. In new section 9 therefore if it contains little more details with regard to various office bearers within the Village Panchayat then that in itself would not justify the submission that Sarpanch is an outsider or an alien to Village Panchayat as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. In fact the entire Panchayat and its constitution is governed by section 9 which read as under. “9. Constitution of Village Pancayats- [1] A village panchayat shall consist of such number of members as provided in sub-section (4); (2) The members of a village panchayat shall be elected from amongst qualified voters of the village; (3)(a) A village panchayat shall have a Sarpanch and an Upa-Sarpanch. (b) The Sarpanch shall be elected by ballot by the qualified voters of the village from amongst themselves. (c) The Upa-Sarpanch shall be elected by the members of the village panchayat from amongst themselves. (4) A village panchayat of a village having population not exceeding three thousand shall consist of seven members and in case of a village panchayat where the population of the village exceeds three thousand, then for every one thousand or part thereof in excess of three thousand, the said number of seven shall be increased by two. (5)(a)(i) Seats shall be reserved by the State Government for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every village panchayat in the State and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of seats in that panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the village or as the case may be of the Scheduled Tribes in that village bears to the total population of that village and such seats shall be allotted by the State Election Commission by location to different wards in that village in the prescribed manner. [(ia)] in the case of a village panchayat, the whole local area of which comprises of any of the Scheduled Areas, the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes under sub-clause (i) shall be increased to such number as is not less than one-half of the total number of seats in the village panchayat.] (ii) where in a village there is in the opinion of the State Government population of socially and educationally backward classes, there shall be reserved by the State Government for the socially and educationally backward classes one tenth of the total number of seats in a village panchayat and such seats shall be allotted by the State Election Commission by rotation to different wards in that village in the prescribed manner. (b) One third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (a) shall, be reserved by the State Government for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or, as the case may be, the socially and educationally backward classes. (c) One third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the socially and educationally backward classes) of the total number of seats in a village panchayat shall be reserved by the State Government for women and such seats shall be allotted by the State Election Commission by rotation to different wards in the village in the prescribed manner.” At this stage it would also be proper to set out the old section 12 of the Act which also deal with constitution of Panchayat which read as follows: “12. Constitution of gram panchayats- (1) A gram panchayat shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), consist of such number of member or members (including the Sarpanch) not less than 7 and not more than 15, as the competent authority may, subject to the general order made by the State Government in regard to the allocation of number of seats to different grams having regard to the varying extent of population therein, determine, and such members shall be elected from amongst the qualified voters of the gram. (2) A gram panchayat shall have a Sarpanch and an Upa-Sarpanch. 3. The Sarpanch shall be elected by ballot by the qualified voters of the gram from amongst themselves. 4. The Upa-Sarpanch shall be elected by the members of the gram panchayat from amongst themselves. 5. (2) A gram panchayat shall have a Sarpanch and an Upa-Sarpanch. 3. The Sarpanch shall be elected by ballot by the qualified voters of the gram from amongst themselves. 4. The Upa-Sarpanch shall be elected by the members of the gram panchayat from amongst themselves. 5. Out of the total number of seats of members determined under sub-section (1) there shall be reserved - (a) *[for women, two seats]; (b) for Scheduled Castes, one seat or if in the case of any gram, the State Government having regard to the population of Scheduled Tribes therein specifies more seats in this behalf, the seats so specified; (c) for Scheduled Tribes, one seat or if in the case of any gram, the State Government having regard to the population of Scheduled Tribes therein specifies more seats in this behalf, the seats so specified: Provided that nothing in clause (b) or (c) shall apply where there is no population of Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, of Scheduled Tribes in any gram: Provided further that where the State Government finds that there is in any gram population of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding that the relevant figures of the last preceding census show that there is no such population in that gram, it shall be lawful for the State Government to ascertain such population in that gram after making or causing to be made such inquiry as it thinks fit and to specify the number of seats under clause (b), or as the case may be, clause (c) , having regard to the population of Scheduled Casts, or as the case may be, Scheduled Tribes in that gram as so ascertained: Provided further that the reserved seats may be allotted by rotation to different wards in a gram in the prescribed manner: Provided also that where in the case of any gram panchayat the number of seats which the State Government thinks fit to specify under clause (b) or (c) is in its opinion fairly large in relation to the total number of members of that panchayat the State Government may allocate out of the seats so thought fit to be specified, such number of seats to women as it deems fit, and the rest to Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, to Scheduled Tribes.] “ Now, non inclusion of Panchayat in the definition of 'Member' and little more distinct reference to the Panchayat in itself would not refer the Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch to be not member of the Panchayat. The scheme of new Act shows that Panchayat is consisting of Sarpanch, Upa Sarpanch and Members and therefore this fine distinction which is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of distinct treatment in the very section would be of no avail to the petitioner. (b) The Court at this stage need not examine as to whether section 32 should have been invoked when a Sarpanch incur disqualification by passing provision of section 57, as that is not the submission canvased on behalf of the petitioner. The judgment of this Court in case of Shankar Bhailalbhai Patel (supra) in my view will on all its four applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case. The Sarpanch cannot be treated to be not covered by provision of section 30 & 32 of the Act, or else it will lead to absurdity and a person interested in becoming the Sarpanch would not be debarred on account of disqualification mentioned under section 30 and hence, in my view, such an absurdity would not brook acceptance of any distinct interpretation. 7. The petition being bereft of any merits deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Rule discharged. However no order as to costs.