No-confidence motion under Panchayat law is not appealable, but the District Panchayat's appellate order can still be revised.

A no-confidence motion carried by the requisite majority against a Sarpanch, Up-sarpanch, President or Vice-President of a Panchayat is not itself an appealable or revisable order or decision under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, because its legal effect flows from members' individual voting and the statute provides automatic cessation of office. However, once the District Panchayat exercises appellate jurisdiction under section 242, its appellate order may be revised by the State Government under section 259, since revision then lies against the appellate order and not the original motion. The interim arrangement was modified accordingly, with the appellate order stayed pending fresh decision of the revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority against a Sarpanch, Up-sarpanch, President or Vice-President of a Panchayat is an appealable or revisable order or decision under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. (ii) Whether the State Government can exercise revisional power where the District Panchayat has already exercised appellate power under section 242 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. (iii) What interim relief should follow in the present matter.

Issue (i): Whether a motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority against a Sarpanch, Up-sarpanch, President or Vice-President of a Panchayat is an appealable or revisable order or decision under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 56, 70 and 84 treats a no-confidence motion as carried by the support of the prescribed majority and provides its own consequence of cessation of office after three days. The Court held that such a result is not a collective resolution or decision of the Panchayat, but the consequence of individual voting by members. Since section 242 applies only to an order or decision of a Panchayat and section 259 applies to an order passed by a Panchayat, a motion carried by requisite majority does not fall within either provision. Rule 21 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997 was read down so that its reference to a decision of the Panchayat could not override the parent statute.

Conclusion: No appeal lies under section 242 and no revision lies under section 259 against a no-confidence motion carried by requisite majority.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government can exercise revisional power where the District Panchayat has already exercised appellate power under section 242 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993.

Analysis: Once the District Panchayat has itself exercised appellate jurisdiction under section 242, its decision assumes the character of an appellate order. The Court held that such an order can be examined by the State Government in revision under section 259 because the revisional power then operates against the order passed in appeal, not against the original no-confidence motion itself. The Court found that the contrary administrative view ignored this distinction and that the revision was competent to that limited extent.

Conclusion: Revision under section 259 is competent against the District Panchayat's appellate order passed under section 242.

Issue (iii): What interim relief should follow in the present matter.

Analysis: Since the original no-confidence motion had been carried by the requisite majority and the District Panchayat's appellate order was under revision, the Court held that the interim arrangement must respect the legislative scheme giving effect to loss of confidence. The Court therefore stayed the operation of the District Panchayat's appellate order and directed that the respondent would not continue as Sarpanch pending final decision of the revision, while leaving the revision to be decided afresh after hearing both sides.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the revision was restored, and interim relief was granted by staying the appellate order.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part: direct challenge to a no-confidence motion was held not maintainable, but revision against the District Panchayat's appellate order was held maintainable, and the interim arrangement was modified accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A no-confidence motion carried by the requisite statutory majority is not an appealable or revisable order or decision of a Panchayat, but an appellate order passed by the District Panchayat under section 242 can itself be examined in revision under section 259.

---