JUDGMENT : 1. These both of petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as common question of law is involved is linked with Special Civil application No.16133 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.42 of 2020. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The facts giving rise to these both of petitions are that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16132 of 2018 was the Up-Sarpanch and the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16133 of 2018 was Chairman of the Kelod Gram Panchayat. The motion of No Confidence was moved against them and they were removed from their respective posts. They, therefore, challenged the Resolution of No Confidence which was passed against them in these petitions and have prayed that the Resolution of No Confidence passed against them may be quashed and set aside. 3. I have heard Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 9 in Special Civil Application No.42 of 2020 and Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 8. 4. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submits that agenda of meeting of notice of No Confidence was not served on the petitioners. It is his further contention that the petitioners were also not afforded an opportunity of speaking in the meeting as required under Section 56 of the Panchayat Act. It is his further submission that in Special Civil Application No.42 of 2020, one of the members had incurred disqualification on account of his absence in more than three continuous meetings yet he was allowed to participate and vote in meeting. He, therefore, urged that the petitions may be allowed and the respective resolutions of No Confidence against the petitioners be set aside. 5. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the petitioners had participated and voted in the meeting and therefore, in view of decision of Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1135 of 2018 rendered on 31.08.2018, the petitioners cannot thereafter raise the contention that they were not given opportunity to speak in the meeting. 5. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the petitioners had participated and voted in the meeting and therefore, in view of decision of Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1135 of 2018 rendered on 31.08.2018, the petitioners cannot thereafter raise the contention that they were not given opportunity to speak in the meeting. His further contention is that the petitioners had not even asked for an opportunity to speak in the meeting and therefore, the No Confidence Motion cannot be quashed on the ground that the opportunity of speaking at the meeting was not given to the petitioners. It is his further submission that the agenda of the meeting was sought to be served on the petitioners, however, they refused to accept it and therefore, the petitioners cannot now contend that the agenda of the meeting was not served on them. He would also submit that the member, who is alleged to have ceased to be a member on account of his absenteeism in the meeting had infact remained absent after obtaining necessary leave. Therefore, there is no question of his cessation as a member of the Panchayat. He, therefore, submitted that the petitions are devoid of substance and needs to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate for the respondents relied upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayendrasinh Bhupatsinh Diama versus State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1096 to contend that the confidence of elected members is of paramount consideration and if they have lost confidence upon the Sarpanch then the minor procedural lapses, if any, cannot be allowed to operate to frustrate will and desire of the elected representatives. 7. The learned AGP has adopted the arguments canvassed by Mr. H.S. Munshaw and Mr. Vaghela, learned advocates for the respondents. 8. The perusal of material annexed to the petitions amply demonstrate that the agenda of the meeting was sought to be served on the petitioners, however, they had refused to accept it. The agenda was therefore, served upon the petitioners by RPAD, which fact is not disputed by the petitioners. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioners had attended the meeting and participated therein. The agenda was therefore, served upon the petitioners by RPAD, which fact is not disputed by the petitioners. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioners had attended the meeting and participated therein. It is not the case the case of the petitioners nor there any material on record that they had raised the objection of non service of agenda to them as required under the provisions of the Panchayat Act. Now, in my considered view that they cannot question the procedural legality on the ground that the agenda was not served upon them to assail No Confidence Motion. 9. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had participated in the meeting and had voted against the Motion of No Confidence against them. The Division Bench of this Court in decision dated 31.08.2018 rendered in LPA No.1135 of 2018 has held as under :- “10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a contention that the respondents have violated his right to speak as provided under subsection (3) of Section 56 of the Act as no discussion had taken place on the motion. However, the said contention is misconceived. If the provisions contained in subsection (3) of Section 56 of the Act is carefully examined, it is revealed that the Sarpanch against whom the Motion of No Confidence is moved, has a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings of such meeting including the right to vote. It is not in dispute that petitioner participated in the meeting and exercised his right to vote. Thus, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error while not accepting the said contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 11. Learned Single Judge has also placed reliance upon the order dated 11.07.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8204 of 2018 in the case of Bharatbhai Ravjibhai Vadi v. State of Gujarat, wherein this Court has held in para 9 as under:- “9. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it transpires that the Sarpanch against whom the motion of No Confidence is moved, can not preside over the meeting, but he has right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings of such meeting, including the right to vote. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it transpires that the Sarpanch against whom the motion of No Confidence is moved, can not preside over the meeting, but he has right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings of such meeting, including the right to vote. Hence, the Sarpanch against whom the motion is moved could exercise his right to speak before the motion is passed or otherwise he could take part in the proceedings, including to exercise his right to vote. There is no right conferred on him to invite him to speak. It could never be the proposition that until he exercises his right to speak, motion could not be passed. It would be his choice or discretion whether to exercise his right to speak and raise objection against the motion, or otherwise to participate in the proceedings.” 12. In the case of Geetaben Bharatbhai Patel (supra), notice of No Confidence was moved against the concerned Sarpanch and meeting was thereafter convened at the office of the Gram Panchayat, wherein 17 members of the Panchayat remained present. It is the case of the petitioner in the said case that during the meeting, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to speak at the meeting, the Chairman of the meeting asked the members to indicate their votes by raising their hands. The petitioner in the said case opposed the procedure and sought permission to speak at the meeting. However, she was denied the opportunity to address the members and thereafter voting took place wherein 14 members cast their vote in favour of No Confidence motion and 2 members voted against the motion. 12.1. Whereas, in the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner has never objected to the procedure followed in the meeting and did not make any request to speak at the said meeting. On the contrary, petitioner participated in the meeting without raising any objection and voted in his favour. Thus, this decision would not render any assistance to the petitioner.” 10. Had the petitioners in the meeting itself raised an objection and invoked their right to speak in the meeting, the case of the petitioners would have stood on different footing. On the contrary, petitioner participated in the meeting without raising any objection and voted in his favour. Thus, this decision would not render any assistance to the petitioner.” 10. Had the petitioners in the meeting itself raised an objection and invoked their right to speak in the meeting, the case of the petitioners would have stood on different footing. However, the petitioners never asserted their right to speak in the meeting and participated and voted and therefore, in view of the ratio propounded by the Division Bench of this Court they cannot make grievance that right to speak was not afforded to them. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioners could not point out any other procedural irregularity which would have gone to the root of the matter, which would have vitiated the entire proceedings of the meeting in which the Motion of No Confidence was considered and passed. I am, therefore, of the view that the motion of No Confidence passed against the petitioners cannot be quashed and set aide. The petitions lack merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions fail and they are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No Costs. Connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.