JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - This is an application filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India by one Shri Pradip Ch. Choudhury challenging the validity of the vote of no-confidence recorded against him in the meeting held on 16-10-1965 of Khutna II Panchayat Samiti of which he was then the Chairman-by eight out of its fourteen non-official members who were elected u/s 16(1)(d) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad Act, 1965 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The prayer made in the application is for the issue of a wide in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order prohibiting the opposite parties from acting in pursuance of the impugned resolution of no-confidence passed at the said meeting and to set it aside as illegal. 2. The provision in the Act for a vote of no-confidence against the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti is to be found in Section 46B (1), The relevant provisions of that section as it stood at the material time read as follows: Where at a meeting of...the Samiti, specially convened in that behalf a resolution is passed supported by a majority of the total number of members having a right to vote, recording want of confidence in the Chairman...of such...Samiti, the resolution shall forthwith be published by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed and with effect from the date of such publication the Chairman...shall be deemed to have vacated Office. 3. It is not disputed that the total number of members of the Samiti in the present case who had a right to vote was fourteen and therefore the minimum majority of the total number of members having a right to vote could in the present case be not less than eight. As such, the resolution of no-confidence as passed here by eight out of the total number of members having a right to vote, cannot be prima facie challenged on the ground that there was no majority recorded in favour of the resolution as contemplated by the aforesaid provisions of Section 46B(1) of the Act. The grievance made, however, by the Petitioner which is the only point raised in support of this application that out of the eight non-official members who voted in support of the resolution of no-confidence, one viz. The grievance made, however, by the Petitioner which is the only point raised in support of this application that out of the eight non-official members who voted in support of the resolution of no-confidence, one viz. Sasadhar Puthal, had no right to vote and therefore-as objected to by the Petitioner at the meeting-opposite party No. 3 should not have been allowed to take part in the proceedings of the meeting and record his vote; and, in any case, his vote even if cast, should not have been taken into consideration. Accordingly; it has been submitted that the number of valid votes which were cast in favour of the resolution of no-confidence was, in the eye of law, only seven and not eight.' It is not controverted by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, that if it is true that opposite party. 3 had no right to vote the number of valid votes in support of the resolution of no-confidence would have been only seven and not eight, and in that case that resolution could not have been held as validly passed in terms of Section 46B (1) of the Act. That being so, the sole question that arises for consideration, on the facts of this case fit whether opposite party No. 3 had or had not at the time of the sat;: meeting the right to vote. If he had the right to vote as claimed by the learned Advocate General the application has to be thrown out without relief; if on the other hand he had no right to vote the same has to be allowed as prayed for by the Petitioner. 4. Now, it appears that one of the originally elected non- official members namely Bhim Chandra Singh had died on 15-8-1965 and it was in the vacancy caused on his death that opposite party No. 3 was subsequently elected as one of the non-official members of the Samiti in his place on 17-9-1965 u/s 16(1)(d) of the Act as it then stood. But the grievance made on behalf of the Petitioner is that though opposite party No. 3 was validly elected u/s 16(1)(d) of the Act as stated above there was-no notification published by the Collector of the district until the date of the impugned resolution, viz., 16-10-1965, in the Orissa Gazette as contemplated by Section 16(5) of the Act read with Rule 20(2) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Election, Election Disputes and Decision about Disqualification of Members) Rules, 1960 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). 'Therefore, on the date of the aforesaid meeting convened for the consideration of the no confidence resolution, opposite party No. 3 could not be deemed to have come into his office and to be as such entitled to vote at that meeting. 5. In our opinion the submission made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner in support of this view is erroneous and cannot be supported in law. Section 16(5) of the Act as it stood then provided that,: The Collector shall cause the names of the non-official members of the Samiti to be published in the prescribed manner and the members shall be deemed to have held office with effect from the date of such publication. 6. Therefore, all that is true is that the publication of the names of the ejected non-official members of the Samiti in the manner prescribed under tat rule is a condition precedent for qualifying such a member to have a right to vote, but the manner of publication of the names of the elected non-official members of the Samiti as prescribed in Rule 20(2) of the Rules does not, in our opinion, include their publication in the Orissa Gazette and, therefore, simply for the reason of non- publication of their names in the Orissa Gazette the elected non-official members of the Samiti cannot be debarred from exercising any of the powers available to them as such members including the r right to vote; nor for that reason can they be held to have not acquired any power as such members. 7. All that Rule 20(2) of the Rules provides is that: The Collector shall publish the name of the person so elected in his Notice Board. 7. All that Rule 20(2) of the Rules provides is that: The Collector shall publish the name of the person so elected in his Notice Board. He shall also for the purpose of Sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act, publish the names of all the non-official members of the Samiti in his Notice Board and shall forward a copy of such notification to the Government Press for publication in the Orissa Gazette and to the Government and Chairman of the Parish ad and Samiti. 8. In the present case we are concerned only with the latter part of this Rule which is in relation to the publication as contemplated by Section 16(5) of the Act. This latter part obviously embodies two requirements: one that the Collector of the district shall publish the names of the non-official members of the Samiti in his Notice Board; the second that he shall forward a copy of such notification to the Government Press for publication in the Orissa Gazette and to the Government and Chairman of the Parish ad and Samiti. There is no grievance made here that the first requirement of this latter part of the Rule was not complied with; in other words it is conceded that the name of opposite part No. 3 was published in the Notice Board of he Collector s office; so there IS no difficulty about that. The difficulty, if any: as submitted before us is regarding the compliance of the second requirement. But so far as the second requirement of the latter part of the Rule is concerned, that relates only to the forwarding of such notification to the Government Press and to the Chairman of the Parishad and Samiti. It is true that under this rule the purpose for which a copy of the notification is to be sent to the Government Press is publication in the Orissa Gazette, but that purpose has nothing to do with the duty cast on the Collector. The duty cast on the Collector in regard to the compliance of the second requirement, is con filed under the aforesaid rule, to the forwarding of a copy of that notification to time Government Press and to some others as enumerated therein, and does not extend to the factum of its actual publication in the Orissa Gazette. The duty cast on the Collector in regard to the compliance of the second requirement, is con filed under the aforesaid rule, to the forwarding of a copy of that notification to time Government Press and to some others as enumerated therein, and does not extend to the factum of its actual publication in the Orissa Gazette. Therefore, once it is held that a copy of the notification was forwarded by the Collector to the Government Press for publication in the Orissa Gazette, the second requirement as laid down in the latter part of tire aforesaid Rule stands fully satisfied and that quite independent of the consideration whether in fact the purpose for which the notification was forwarded to the Government Press was carried out or not. In the present case, there is no grievance made that the copy of the notification was not at all sent by the Collector to the Government Press for publication in the Orissa Gazette as contemplated by the latter part of Rule 20(2). On the other hand, all that is alleged, as already stated above, is that the name of opposite party No. 3 had not bee, after his election as a non-official member of the Samiti, published in the Orissa Gazette by 16-10-1965 when the said meeting was held. Therefore, as actual publication in the Orissa Gazette is not a mode of publication prescribed in Rule 20(2) of the Rules, the mere absence of such publication in the Orissa Gazette could not deprive opposite party o. 3 either of the right to enter his office as an elected non-official member of the Samiti or of the right to vote as such on the date when the resolution of no confidence was considered. viz: 16-10-1965. 9. For these reasons it cannot be said that opposite party No. 3, on the date of the aforesaid meeting had no right to vote when the resolution of non-confidence was considered; on the contrary, it has to be held that as the requirement of the aforesaid Rule 20(2) had been by then complied with, he bad the right to vote. The application therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing Fee Rs. 100/ - (Rupees one hundred). Misra, J. 10. I agree Final Result : Dismissed