JUDGMENT C.L. Soni, J. 1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 1- District Development Officer whereby the District Development Officer allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 and set aside the order dated 22.4.2013 passed by respondent No. 2- Taluka Development Officer under Section 30 read with Section 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 ('the Act'). 2. By the order dated 22.4.2013, the Taluka Development Officer held that the respondent No. 3 incurred disqualification under Section 30(1)(m) of the Act on account of birth of third child after clause (m) was inserted by the Amendment Act of 2005. 3. Respondent No. 1 however overturned the order of the Taluka Development Officer in the appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 on the ground that birth of third child in the family of respondent No. 3 was after respondent No. 3 was elected as member of the Panchayat and not at the time when respondent No. 3 filed nomination form or at the time when election took place and therefore, the respondent No. 3 did not incur disqualification to continue as member of the Panchayat. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan submitted that Section 30 of the Act provides for disqualification on account of birth of third child after the amending provision of 2005 and by virtue of such provision, even if birth of third child is after election is held, it would render the elected member disqualified to continue as member of the Panchayat. Mr. Pathan submitted that Section 30 gives negative mandates dis-entitling a person either to be a member of the Panchayat or to continue to be as such who suffers any of disqualifications provided therein. Mr. Pathan submitted that Section 32 of the Act makes it very clear that a member who incurs any of disqualifications mentioned in Section 30 of the Act during his term shall be dis-entitled to continue as a member and his office shall be vacant on declaration made by the competent authority. Mr. Mr. Pathan submitted that Section 32 of the Act makes it very clear that a member who incurs any of disqualifications mentioned in Section 30 of the Act during his term shall be dis-entitled to continue as a member and his office shall be vacant on declaration made by the competent authority. Mr. Pathan thus submitted that the Taluka Development Officer correctly held that the respondent No. 3 incurred disqualification to continue as member of the Panchayat and made no error in declaring his office as vacant and respondent No. 1- District Development Officer on wrong interpretation of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act committed serious error in interfering with the order made by the Taluka Development Officer. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that on interpretation of Section 30, especially Section 30(1)(m) of the Act, two authorities have differently opined and it is for this Court to construe the provisions of Section 30(1)(m) of the Act. 6. Nobody has appeared for respondent No. 3 though served with notice of Rule. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, it appears that the Taluka Development Officer as also the District Development Officer have concurrently recorded that birth of third son of respondent No. 3 was on 10.9.2007, which was undisputably after the Amendment Act of 2005 inserting Clause (m) in Section 30 was brought into force on 23.5.2005. 8. Section 30 of the Act prohibits a person to be a member of the Panchayat or to continue as such if such person suffers any of the disqualifications provided therein. 8. Section 30 of the Act prohibits a person to be a member of the Panchayat or to continue as such if such person suffers any of the disqualifications provided therein. Therefore, even if a person is not disqualified, when he filled in nomination form or contested the election for the office of member of the Panchayat, but suffers or incurs any of disqualifications provided in Section 30 of the Act after he is elected and during the term of his office, he can still be declared to be disqualified to continue as a member of the Panchayat and his office can be declared as vacant in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act, which reads as under:-- "32 : (1) If any member of a panchayat,- (a) who is elected, as such, was subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in section 30 at the time of his election, (b) during the term for which he has been elected, incurs any of the disqualification's, mentioned in section 30, he shall be disabled from continuing to be a member, and his office shall become vacant. (2) In every case, the question whether a vacancy has arisen, shall be decided by the competent authority. The competent authority may give its decision either on an application made to it by any person, or on its own motion. Until the competent authority decides that the vacancy has arisen, the member shall not; be disabled under sub-section (1) from continuing to be a member. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority may, within a period of fifteen days from the date of such decision, appeal to the State Government and the orders passed by the State Government in such appeal shall be final: Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section by the competent authority against any member without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 9. In view of the provisions of Sections 30 and 32 of the Act and in view of the undisputed fact that respondent No. 3 became father of third child after the amendment Act of 2005 inserting Clause (m) in Section 30 came into force, the Taluka Development Officer rightly held and declared that the respondent No. 3 incurred disqualification to continue as member of the Panchayat and committed no error in declaring his office as vacant. The respondent No. 1- District Development Officer has however interfered with the order made by the Taluka Development Officer in appeal of the respondent No. 3 by wrong reading and incorrect interpretation of Section 30 of the Act. The District Development Officer has construed Section30 of the Act as if disqualification provided in Section 30 is only to prevent a person from contesting the election. Such interpretation of Section 30 by the District Development Officer is wrong reading of Section 30 and against the mandate contained therein. Section 30 not only mandates that no person shall be a member of the Panchayat if he incurs any of disqualifications provided therein but even disables an elected member to continue as member if he incurs disqualification during his term of office. 10. In above such view of the matter, the impugned order made by the District Development Officer in the appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside and the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 22.4.2013 is required to be restored. 11. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside and the order passed by respondent No. 2-Taluka Development Officer dated 22.4.2013 is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.