Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Maluram under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. Briefly put the case of the applicant is that he was Sarpanch of Tehsil Panchayat Lunkeransar, The Panchas of the Panchayat passed a motion of no confidence against him on the 13th October, 1953. The applicant contended that this motion of no confidence was illegal in view of the provisions of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat, Act, 1953, read with sec. 58(3) of the Act. According to the applicant, sec. 19 requires that 3/4tbs of the total number of Panchas have to concur before a vote of no confidence is passed and this includes the Sarpanch also as a Panch. In the present case the Tehsil Panchayat consisted of a Sarpanch and 8 Panchas, i.e., the total number Panchas was 9. 3/4ths of that is 6-3/4. Therefore, according to the applicant, at least 7 Panchas should have voted in favour of the motion of no confidence. Actually only six Panchas voted in this case in favour of the motion, and the applicant, therefore, contends that he has been removed under the law. 3. The main question that calls for consideration is whether the words "total number of Panchas" appearing in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 19 include Sarpanch or not. If they do include the Sarpanch, the motion in this case has not been passed as required by sub sec. (2). If they do not include the Sarpanch, and this is the contention on behalf of the State, then the motion must be deemed to have been passed as required by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 19. 4. In this connection we have been referred to sec. 2(3) which defines a Punch sec. 21(4), sec. 58(1) and sec. 58 (5) of the Panchayat Act. 5. It is not necessary to set out these sections in detail. It is enough to say that there is a lot of confusion in these provisions, and one cannot say with certainty whether the word Punch includes Sarpanch everywhere. For example, sub-sec. (4) of sec. 21 mentions that the quorum would be one-third of the whole number of Panchas including the Sarpanch. It is enough to say that there is a lot of confusion in these provisions, and one cannot say with certainty whether the word Punch includes Sarpanch everywhere. For example, sub-sec. (4) of sec. 21 mentions that the quorum would be one-third of the whole number of Panchas including the Sarpanch. According to this sub-section, Sarpanch would not be included within the word Panch; but the definition provides that Panch means a member of a Panchayat, and if this definition were to prevail, a Sarpanch would certainly be a member of the Panchayat, for there is no separate definition of the word Sarpanch. Then sec. 4 refers to number of Panchas in village Panchayats and provides that a Panchayat, shall consist of such number of Panchas, not being less than 5 or more than 15, as the State Government may think fit. Now this sec. obviously does not contemplate that the Sarpanch would be over and above the number of Panchas fixed under sec. 4. Therefore, so far as village Panchayats are concerned, we may safely come to the conclusion that a Sarpanch is included in the words total number of Panchas in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 19. A Sar-panch is a member of a village Panchayat and is also a Panch within the meaning of that word as used in sec. 4; It has, however, been urged by the opposite-parties that sec. 58 is different inasmuch as it provides for the establishment of a Tehsil Panchayat consisting of a Sarpanch and six to eight Panchas, The wording of this section is certainly different from the wording of sec. 4. Similarly, sec. 58(5) provides for a quorum and lays down that the quorum shall consist of a Sarpanch and four Panchas or any five Panchas. But though these two provisions in sec. 58 have used the word Sarpanch separately from the word Panch, it still has to be seen whether the words total number of Panchas appearing in sec 19 (2) have a different meaning when they are applied to a Tehsil Panchayat, for this section applies mutatis mutandis to Tehsil Panchayats by virtue of sec. 58(3). The position is not quite clear or happy in view of the drafting of the section but on a careful consideration of the provision of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 58(3). The position is not quite clear or happy in view of the drafting of the section but on a careful consideration of the provision of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 19 with reference to Tehsil Panchayats, we think that the words total number of Panchas" appearing in the section must include Sarpanch also. The word Panch, therefore, must be taken to mean member of a Panchayat and a Sarpanch, whether he is of a Tehsil Panchayat or of the village Panchayat is obviously a member of the Panchayat. It may also be pointed out that if a Sarpanch is not included in the words "total number of Panchas" appearing in sec. 19 (2) so far as Tehsil Panchayat is concerned the Sarpanch would have no right to table a motion of no confidence or even to vote in a meeting convened for that purpose. It could hardly be the intention of the Legislature that the Sarpanch of a Tehsil Panchayat should thus be disenfranchised. In these circumstances we must take the words "total number of Panchas" appearing in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 19 to mean, in the case of a Tehsil Panchayat also, the total membership of the Panchayat which also includes the Sarpanch. 6. The result of this is that the present resolution of no-confindence was not passed by the requisite majority, as seven votes would be required out of a total membership of 9 to pass a resolution by not less than 6-3/4 of the total membership. The applicant was granted a stay order and has not been removed. In these circumstances, we allow the application and order that the motion of no-confidence is not in accordance with sec. 19(2), and, therefore, the applicant cannot be removed from the office of Sarpanch by virtue of that motion. 7. So far as costs are concerned, it is enough to say that in view of such a majority against the applicant, we are not prepared to allow him costs. We should have thought that he would resign rather than come to us for technical assistance.