ORDER : 1. Present petition under Articles 226 and 243 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. (b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of same and be pleased to quash and set aside election notification issued by the respondent No. 2 on 23.09.2019 for holding bye election on the post of sarpanch of Rambhash Group Gram Panchayat at Annexure-A, to the present petition. (c) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of same and be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal and application for stay preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law and considering the provisions of law and case law cited by the petitioner in support of her case, within a period of 15 days. (d) During the pendency till final disposal of the present petition, election notification issued by the respondent No. 2 on 23.09.2019 for holding bye election on the post of sarpanch of Rambhash Group Gram Panchayat at Annexure-A, may kindly be stayed in all manner. (e).........." 2. The background of facts which has given rise to this writ petition is that general election of Rambhash Group Gram Panchayat was held in January 2017, in which the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch directly from the voters on the reserved post of Scheduled Caste. During passage of time, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 on 28.11.2018, which ultimately culminated into an order dated 5.3.2019, whereby the petitioner came to be removed from the post of Sarpanch of the Panchayat. This has led the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the respondent No. 1 - Appellate Authority on 11.3.2019 along with the application for stay. This has led the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the respondent No. 1 - Appellate Authority on 11.3.2019 along with the application for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite urgency projected by them petitioner, the said application for stay or the appeal has not been promptly dealt with and by that time, according to the petitioner, political influenced persons of rival group saw to it that an election notification is issued on 23.9.2019 for holding bye-election for the post of Sarpanch of the Panchayat and if this election process is allowed to be precipitated further, according to the petitioner, serious prejudice will be caused and the appeal will become infructuous and irreversible situation will be created and with this circumstance, writ jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioner for seeking the aforesaid reliefs essentially for staying the process of election and quashment of the notification issued by the respondent No. 2 on 23.9.2019. 3. The petition initially was placed before learned Single Judge, appears to be by mistake and then having referred to the office, after verification, the same is placed before us for consideration. 4. Learned advocate Mr. C.P. Champaneri appearing for petitioner has vehemently contended that if this issuance of notification is not quashed and set aside, an irreversible situation will be created for the petitioner. It has been submitted that if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, which is pending, there is a legitimate right of the petitioner to hold the post till the expiry of the term as Sarpanch of the Panchayat and therefore, issuance of the notification, according to learned advocate, is with mala fide intent. It has further been submitted that despite the fact that the appeal was presented well in time along with the interim relief application but the Appellate Authority under one reason or the other has so far as not passed any order on the stay application and if this bye-election is allowed to be held, then anomalous situation will be created and there will be two persons validly claiming to be Sarpanch of the Panchayat. Hence, with a view to avoid such kind of situation, bye-election may not be permitted. To strengthen his submission, learned advocate Mr. Hence, with a view to avoid such kind of situation, bye-election may not be permitted. To strengthen his submission, learned advocate Mr. Champaneri has relied upon and referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Bajrang Bahadur Singh and Others, AIR 2016 SC 2301 and has submitted that the Apex Court has clearly observed that in a situation like this, it is always open for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in paragraphs 64 and 65 of the said judgment, the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction is found to be just and proper. It has been submitted that though the said decision is in the proceedings of Representation of the People Act, a reference can always be taken as an assistance. Resultantly, a request is made to allow the petition by granting the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. 5. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. D.M. Devnani appearing for the respondent No. 1 - State has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that the process of election once commenced, may not be intercepted and has further submitted that yet, decision is not taken in the appeal by the Appellate Authority. Hence, as on date, the petitioner stands as removed Sarpanch and therefore, the relief claimed in the petition may not be granted. Mr. Devnani with a view to assist the Court has referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendrabhai Chanabhai Kandoliya vs. Vakatar Bhagvanbhai Devabhai and Others, 2011 (3) GLH 120 and has submitted that the apprehension on the part of the petitioner is ill-founded and almost in a similar situation, fresh election to the post of Sarpanch, if to be conducted, is always subject to final outcome of the proceedings and therefore, relying upon the principle of lis pendens and taking constructive note of the same, it has been observed by the Division Bench that such election during the proceedings be treated as subject to final outcome and the question of such apprehension voiced out by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail to challenge the notification. It has further been pointed out by Mr. It has further been pointed out by Mr. Devnani, on instruction, that here is a case in which the appeal itself is fixed by the Authority and it is to be heard on 11.10.2019 and as such, instead of precipitating further the present proceedings, the petitioner may concentrate in the appeal which may be heard by the authority and by referring to the aforesaid decision and the submissions made hereinabove, request is made not to entertain the petition. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, we have found that the appeal against the order of removal of the petitioner as Sarpanch is already seized by the Appellate Authority and it is in near future likely to be disposed of and as said by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Devnani on instruction, the same is to be heard on 11.10.2019. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in a situation like this. 7. We have noticed that the decision delivered by the Apex Court, as referred to by learned advocate Mr. Champaneri, which relates to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the facts are not identically situated and therefore, in different contractual circumstance, to apply the observations as a straitjacket formula would not be safe. As a result of this, we are not impressed by the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner on that issue. 8. However, we have noticed that the decision in the case of Mahendrabhai Chanabhai Kandoliya (supra) delivered by the Division Bench of this Court is almost similar in nature. As a result of this, we are not impressed by the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner on that issue. 8. However, we have noticed that the decision in the case of Mahendrabhai Chanabhai Kandoliya (supra) delivered by the Division Bench of this Court is almost similar in nature. In para 18, the observations which have been made are likely to take care of the apprehension of the petitioner since the appeal preferred by the petitioner, if allowed in her favour, appropriate effect of the order is always to be given by the authority and particularly, during pendency of the appeal, this bye-election is to be conducted, result thereof is always subject to final decision of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner since it relates to the very same post for which the proceedings are pending and as such, since this be the situation, we refrain ourselves from passing any order in the present proceedings, except to direct the respondent authority, where the appeal proceedings are pending, to hear and decide the same as early as possible by giving priority. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of.