ORDER S.B. Sen, J. The Petitioner Gayassuddin Khan was validly elected Sarpanch of village Kasba Tal, pargana Sironj, district Vidisha. On 17-7-70 a meeting was convened under the orders of the District Panchayat Officer, Vidisha. The order was passed on 22-6-70. Information about the said panchayat meeting was given by the Panchayat Officer to all members. In this meeting there was a resolution of no confidence against the Petitioner In-spite of his various objections raised in accordance with the Panchayat Act and Rules the resolution was passed. The Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings of the said meeting by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the Petitioner the meeting suffered from the following defects: (i) Under the rules a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch has to be convened in the manner prescribed under the rules. Notice of such a resolution is to be given in the prescribed form to the Secretary in advance, whereupon he has to fix the meeting after giving 7 clear days' notice to all the members mentioning the time, place and purpose. This rule has not been observed. (ii) Yusuf Ali, the Up-sarpanch was not served for the said meeting with any notice. Basal Khan, Pooran and Khemchand were also not served, but they were brought on oral request in the meeting. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat representing the Gram Panchayat has filed a return. The Secretary has admitted about the non-service on the Up-sarpanch and also about the non-service on Basal Khan, Pooran and Khemchand. Under Section 24 of the M.P. Panchayats Act "on a motion of no confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than one half of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office with effect from the date immediately next after the date on which such motion is passed." In the instant case it is clear that out of 17 members, 16 were present. Twelve of them voted for no confidence. Twelve of them voted for no confidence. There cannot be any doubt that the no confidence motion was validly passed, if we look to the number of persons present and the number voted. The contention is that the meeting itself which passed the resolution was invalid as it was not convened according to law. Rules have been framed for passing no confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch which is called M. P. Gram Panchayats (No confidence Motion Against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch), Rules 1964. The following rules are of importance in this connection: (3) Notice- (1) Any Panch or Panchas who desires or desire to move a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch shall give a notice thereof to the Secretary in the Form appended to these rules. Where the Panch or Panchas desires or desire to move the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch as well as the Up-Sarpanch, he or they shall give two separate notices. If the notice is given jointly by more than one Panch, the motion may be moved by any of the Panchas signing the notice." (2) The Secretary shall, on receiving the notice under Sub-rule (1), sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which and the hour at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt. 4 Convening of the meeting- The meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the purposes of Section 24 of the Act shall be convened by the Secretary and the notice of such meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be despatched by the Secretary to every Panch seven clear days before the meeting. A copy of the notice shall be sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapada Panchayat concerned. In the instant case no notice was given by the Secretary. In fact the annexure to the petition shows that the notice was not served by the Secretary. Not only that, but three members as well as the Sarpanch were also not served with notices for the purpose of this no confidence motion. Even the Petitioner himself has not been served. This position has been admitted in the return. If that is so the meeting cannot be said to have been validly convened. In fact we may say that there was no meeting at all. Even the Petitioner himself has not been served. This position has been admitted in the return. If that is so the meeting cannot be said to have been validly convened. In fact we may say that there was no meeting at all. If a person who is not authorised to call a meeting calls one, the meeting is not validly convened even if the members collect. Mere gathering of the persons at the request of an unauthorised person is not a meeting under the rules. There should always be 7 clear days' notice of the meeting. That has also not happened. The importance of this provision is that a vote of no-confidence may not be very lightly passed. There should be opportunity for the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom a vote of no-confidence has to be moved to convince the members or to satisfy them that the grounds on which the motion is being moved will have no basis There should be scope for removal of misunderstanding. That is necessary for all democratic institutions. In view of what we have said above we feel that the resolution of no-confidence passed on 17-7-70 against the Petitioner should be quashed. As the non-Petitioner has not challenged the factual position, we do not saddle any costs. The Petitioner may be refunded his security after deducting any amount that he is liable to, under the rules.