JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Sarpanch of Kutarang Grama Panchayat, challenging the validity of a resolution passed at a meeting held on 19-3-1963 at which a vote of on confidence was passed against him and in pursuance of which Government in the Community Development and Panchayat Raj Department by its notification No. 18843-XXX-51/63-C.D. dated 19-11-1963 published in the Orissa gazette) removed him from the office of Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. 2. The admitted facts are these. The said Grama Panchayat was divided into various wards and the number of members to be elected from each ward was fixed by the District Magistrate of Cuttack on 27-11-1959 approving the proposals submitted by the S.D.M. of Kendrapara. In consequence of this delimitation of wards and fixation of the number of members from each ward, the total number of members of the Panchayat was fixed at 18. Apparently this power was exercised by the District Magistrate under Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. Two of the members died early in 1963. On 9-1-1963 ten members of the Panchayat sent a requisition for convening a meeting of the Panchayat for passing a vote of no confidence against the Petitioner Sarpanch. The meeting was actually held on 19-3-1963 and was conducted by a gazetted officer, namely the Block Development Officer Shri P.K. Swain (opp. party No. 3). But only 13 members were present at that meeting. 9 of them voted in favour of the no confidence motion recommending the removal of the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. We understand from Mr. Misra, counsel for the Petitioner that this recommendation was duly reported to Government and in the aforesaid notification, Government, purporting to exercise their powers under Rule 35(c) of the Grama Panchayat Rules, removed the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. Mr. Misra?s contention is that as the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat is 18 the majority for the purpose of removing a Sarpanch from office must at least be 10 as required by Clause (c) of Rule 35 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules. Mr. Misra?s contention is that as the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat is 18 the majority for the purpose of removing a Sarpanch from office must at least be 10 as required by Clause (c) of Rule 35 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules. As admittedly only 9 members voted in favour of the no confidence motion the requirement of Clause (c) of Rule 35 was not fulfilled and consequently Government had no jurisdiction to issue the notification removing the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. 4. Rule 35(3) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules was amended on 17-2-1962; and by virtue or that amendment if a vote of no confidence is supported by a bare majority of the "sanctioned-strength" Government may remove the Sarpanch. But at the same time detailed provisions were made for conducting meetings of the Panchayat to be held for passing a vote of no confidence against a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch. These amendments were inserted in the form of a proviso to Clause (c) of Rule 35 and that proviso consists of seven sub-clauses. In these sub-clauses the expression "Sanctioned strength" is not used, but on the other hand in Sub-clauses (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii), the relevant expression used is "members of the Panchayat". There may be some ambiguity in construing the expression "members of the Panchayat". One view would be that it means the actual number of members holding office on the relevant date. On the other hand it may also mean the total sanctioned strength of the Grama Panchayat as fixed by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(4) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. To resolve this ambiguity the State Government purporting to exercise their power, under the Removal of Difficulties clause namely Section 14 issued another notification on 21-6-1962 (sic) notification No. 2125 G.P. in which it was mentioned that in Sub-clauses (i) and (ii), (vi) and (vii) of the said proviso to Section 35(c) of the Grama Panchayat Rules the expression "members of the Grama Panchayat" should be construed to mean member of the Panchayat actually holding office either on the date of requisition or on the date of the meeting as the case may be Unfortunately, in this notification there was no reference to the construction of the expression "sanctioned strength" occurring in the main portion of Clause (0) of Rule 35. This difficulty was noticed by this Court in the Division Bench decision reported in Raj Kishore Mohanty v. State of Orissa ILR 1963 Cutt 625 (627), paragraph 5 where it was pointed out that this might have been a drafting omission, but in any case a party was entitled to take advantage of the same. Following that decision, therefore, we must hold that the clarificatory notification dated 25-6-1962 issued by Government will not be of any help in construing the expression 'sanctioned strength' occurring in the main portion of Rule 35(c). That expression must therefore be construed to mean the actual strength as fixed by the District Magistrate u/s 10(4) of the Act which will be 18 in the present case. As admittedly the total number of votes cast in favour of the no confidence motion against the Petitioner was only nine, it must be held that the resolution was not carried by a majority of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat, namely 10. Consequently, Government had no jurisdiction to remove the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Mr. Misra further contended that the aforesaid notification of the 21st June 1962 issued in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Grama Panchayat Act was itself ultra vires inasmuch as it was a colourable device to avoid exercising the rule making power conferred by Section 114 of the Grama Panchayat Act under which alone Rule 35(c) could be properly amended the learned Advocate General thereupon contended that the view taken by us in the aforesaid Division Bench decision required reconsideration. So far as Mr. Misra's contention is concerned we consider it unnecessary to decide it here in view of the fact that we are disposing this petition on other grounds. So far as the contention of the Advocate General is concerned we consider that we are bound by the aforesaid Division Bench decision and he has not made out sufficient grounds to refer the question to a large Bench. For these reasons the petition is allowed and the notification issued by the Government of Orissa, in the Community Development and Panchayat Raj Department on 19-11-1963 is quashed. There will be no order for costs. Misra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed