ORDER : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. In this application, the applicants have prayed for following relief, "(A) To vacate interim relief granted by the Hon'ble Court on 23.10.2019 in SCA No. 19211 of 2019 under Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India. (B) xxx xxx xxx." 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. B.T. Rao for the applicants, learned advocate, Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya for the opponent no. 1-original petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Antani for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 3. It is stated by learned advocate, Mr. Rao appearing for the applicants that the applicants are the elected members of the Rajkot District Panchayat and they are elected on the symbol of Indian National Congress. It is submitted that on 01.10.2019, no confidence motion has been moved by 24 elected members of Rajkot District Panchayat against the President of the said Panchayat and the said proposal for no confidence motion is signed by the original petitioner as well as one Dhrupadba K. Jadea i.e. the respondent no. 6 herein. He further submitted that thereafter, the District Development Officer, respondent no. 4, addressed a letter dated 01.10.2019 to the President of the District Panchayat for convening the meeting to discuss the no confidence motion within a period of 15 days under Section 84(4)(a) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. He submitted that in pursuance thereto, the President asked the District Development Officer to convene the meeting on 17.10.2019, however, the District Development Officer did not convene the meeting and referred the matter to the Development Commissioner and on the report received by the Development Commissioner from the District Development Officer, the Development Commissioner directed the District Development Officer to convene the meeting of elected members of the Rajkot District Panchayat on 24.10.2019 under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Rajkot. He submitted that the District Development Officer, Rajkot, therefore, called the meeting on 24.10.2019 for the purpose of discussing no confidence motion vide his letter dated 16.10.2019. 4. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao mainly contended that though the agenda was received by the members of the District Panchayat on 16.10.2019, the original petitioner filed captioned petition only on 23.10.2019 without joining the President against whom, the no confidence motion is moved by the members and joined the original respondent no. 5, who is the signatory of the letter for no confidence motion. Rao mainly contended that though the agenda was received by the members of the District Panchayat on 16.10.2019, the original petitioner filed captioned petition only on 23.10.2019 without joining the President against whom, the no confidence motion is moved by the members and joined the original respondent no. 5, who is the signatory of the letter for no confidence motion. It is submitted that this Court granted urgent circulation of the said petition at 02:30 p.m. on 23.10.2019 and after hearing learned advocate appearing for the original petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6-Caveator, this Court passed an order, whereby this Court has granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para No. 7(c) and thereby agenda notice dated 16.10.2019 as well as all ancillary and consequential actions taken by the respondent authorities are stayed and, therefore today, though the meeting was called at 12:00 noon, the said meeting is differed because of the stay granted by this Court and, therefore, this application is filed. 5. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao has alleged that the original petitioner has misguided this Court and by suppressing the material fact, the original petitioner got ad-interim relief in his favour. He, therefore, submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is also required to be seen by this Court as he had not preferred the petition upto 23.10.2019 though agenda was received on 17.10.2019. He submitted that the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the competent authority i.e. the Development Commissioner is not produced by the petitioner along with the petition and, therefore, looking to the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the petition and, therefore, this Court may vacate the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao appearing for the applicants referred to Rule 9 of the Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1997 and submitted that the said Rule would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao appearing for the applicants referred to Rule 9 of the Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1997 and submitted that the said Rule would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao referred to the provision contained in Section 84(4) of the Panchayat Act and, thereafter, submitted that the meeting of the Panchayat for dealing with the motion of no confidence shall be called within a period of 15 days from the date on which the notice of such motion is received by the President and if the President of the Panchayat fails to call such meeting, the Secretary of the Panchayat shall make a report thereof to the competent authority and, thereafter, the competent authority shall call a meeting within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the report. It is, therefore, contended that within a period of 30 days from the date of the notice of no confidence, process is required to be completed. 8. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao would further contend that the Development Commissioner has appointed independent authority i.e. the Collector for presiding over the meeting and, therefore, when the independent authority like the Collector is authorized to preside over the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence, no illegality is committed. 9. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of Jagrutiben Babubhai Shah, President Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2621 in support of his submission. It is submitted that the decision rendered by learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 837/2005. 10. Learned advocate, Mr. Rao further submits that because of the ad-interim relief granted by this Court, the petition filed by the original petitioner is allowed and, therefore as per the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Agriculture Produce Markets Committee, Halvad Vs. Hemangbhai Bhupatrai Raval & Ors., rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1883/2017, the practice of granting interim relief which amounts to granting principal relief, is not permissible. 11. Learned advocate for the applicants, therefore, urged that this application be allowed and the ad-interim relief granted by this Court be vacated and thereby the respondent authority be directed to convene the meeting immediately. 12. 11. Learned advocate for the applicants, therefore, urged that this application be allowed and the ad-interim relief granted by this Court be vacated and thereby the respondent authority be directed to convene the meeting immediately. 12. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Upadhyaya appearing for the original petitioner has opposed this application and mainly contended that the respondent-District Development Officer has no power to issue agenda meeting and in fact, the Development Commissioner is the competent authority for the District Panchayat for convening the meeting and such powers cannot be delegated to the District Development Officer. In the present case, the agenda notice has been issued on 16.10.2019 by the District Development Officer, Rajkot, which is not permissible as per Section 84(4) of the Panchayat Act. 13. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed any material fact as alleged by the applicants and it is surprising as to how the applicants have received copy of the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Development Commissioner. 14. It is further contended that the competent authority in the present case is the Development Commissioner and, therefore, he cannot authorize the Collector for presiding over the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence and, therefore, the aforesaid issues are required to be decided by this Court in the main petition filed by the original petitioner. He further submitted that if the interim relief is not granted in favour of the petitioner then, the petition filed by the original petitioner would become infructuous and, therefore, no error is committed by this Court while granting ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that as now the meeting is already differed, it is always open for the concerned members to once again move the motion of no confidence in accordance with law and it is always open for the authority to follow the procedure prescribed under the Panchayat Act and Rules. It is, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed. 15. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties and having considered the material placed on record, it has emerged that the District Development Officer has issued the agenda notice dated 16.10.2019 with his signature. In the said agenda notice, reference is made to the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Development Commissioner. 15. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties and having considered the material placed on record, it has emerged that the District Development Officer has issued the agenda notice dated 16.10.2019 with his signature. In the said agenda notice, reference is made to the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Development Commissioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not received the copy of the said order passed by the Development Commissioner. In the main petition filed by the original petitioner, it is the main contention that the Development Commissioner is the competent authority for the purpose of Section 84 of the Panchayat Act and, therefore, the competent authority has to issue agenda notice for convening the meeting considering the motion of no confidence and the said powers cannot be delegated to the District Development Officer. 16. At this stage, the provision contained in Section 84(4) of the Panchayat Act is required to be referred to, 84. Motion of no confidence. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 144, a meeting of the panchayat for dealing with a motion of no confidence under this section shall be called within a period of fifteen days from the date on which a notice of such motion is received by the Panchayat. (b) If the President of the panchayat fails to call such meeting, the Secretary of the panchayat shall make a report thereof to the competent authority and thereupon the competent authority shall call a meeting of the panchayat within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the report." 17. From the aforesaid provision contained in subsection (4) of Section 84 of the Panchayat Act, it is clear that the competent authority has to call a meeting of the Panchayat within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from the Secretary of the Panchayat (in the present case District Development Officer). 18. At this stage, the definition contained in Section 2(4) of the Panchayat Act is required to be referred to, "2. Definitions. 18. At this stage, the definition contained in Section 2(4) of the Panchayat Act is required to be referred to, "2. Definitions. (4) "competent authority" means such Government Officer, panchayat or authority as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint to perform the functions of a competent authority under such provisions of this Act and in respect of such panchayats as may be specified in the said notifications;" 19. It is revealed from the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Development Commissioner, copy of which is produced by learned advocate, Mr. Rao during the course of hearing of present application, that the State Government has issued Notification dated 26.07.1994, whereby the powers are given to the Development Commissioner for the purpose of Section 84 of the Panchayat Act. Thus in the present case, it is not in dispute that the Development Commissioner is the competent authority. Therefore question as to whether the Development Commissioner can delegate his power to the District Development Officer for the purpose of issuing the agenda notice for convening the meeting for no confidence motion or not, is to be decided in the main petition. Further, the question as to whether the Development Commissioner-competent authority can authorize the Collector to preside over the meeting for considering the issue of no confidence motion, can also be decided in the main petition. 20. Thus looking to the aforesaid issues, which are to be decided in the main petition, this Court thought it fit to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the original petitioner. If such interim relief is not granted in favour of the petitioner then, the main petition would become infructuous if the meeting is convened in the meantime. 21. This Court has also taken into consideration the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Mr. Rao appearing for the applicant. However in the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the aforesaid decisions would not render any assistance to the applicants. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, no case is made out by the applicants for vacating the ad-interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 in the main matter. The application is, therefore, accordingly dismissed.