N. R. KUDOOR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was the elected chairman of the village Panchayat committee, Hanaminahal in Kushtagi taluk of Raichur District (for short 'the Panchayat' ). Some of the members of the Panchayat sent a notice of a motion of no confidence against the petitioner to the Secretary of the panchayat on 31-5-1980. The Secretary of the Panchayat delivered a copy of the said notice to the petitioner and also forwarded a copy of it to the 2nd respondent Chief Executive Officer, taluk Development Board, Kushtagi. The petitioner did not call for a meeting of the Panchayat within 30 days from the date of the notice. So the 2nd respondent called for a meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 26-8-1980 for considering the motion of no confidence tabled against the petitioner at 11-30 a. m. in the office of the Panchayat. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the action taken by the 2nd respondent in calling for the meeting of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion of no confidence tabled against him. ( 2 ) SRI B. V. Deshpande, the learned advocate for the petitioner, urged two contentions in favour of issue of rule nisi in the case. They are, (1) that the petitioner was within his competence in taking a decision not to call a meeting of the Panchayat within 30 days as he found the motion of no confidence, a notice of which was given to the secretary of the Panchayat was not in order; and (2) that the meeting of the panchayat called by the 2nd respondent was not in accordance with law since 7 days clear notice of the meeting was not given. ( 3 ) TO better appreciate these contentions, it is relevant to refer to some of the provisions of the Karnataka village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959 ( for short 'the Act') and ajso the rules framed thereunder. S. 32 of the Act provides for initiating no confidence motion against the chairman or the Vice-Chairman. ( 3 ) TO better appreciate these contentions, it is relevant to refer to some of the provisions of the Karnataka village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959 ( for short 'the Act') and ajso the rules framed thereunder. S. 32 of the Act provides for initiating no confidence motion against the chairman or the Vice-Chairman. It reads that a motion of no confidence may be moved by any member against the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman after giving such notice as may be prescribed and such notice shall be supported by not less than one-third of the total number of members of the panchayat and if a meeting for consideration of the motion is not convened by the Chairman within thirty days from the date of notice, the Chief executive Officer of the Taluk Board shall himself convene the meeting. The rest of S. 32 is not relevant for our purpose. S. 36 of the Act lays down far the convening of the. meeting of the panchayat. Sub-section (1) provides that a Panchayat shall meet for the transaction of business at least once in every month at the office of the Panchayat and at such time as the Chairman may determine. Sub-section (2) provides for calling a special meeting and it stipulates that the Chairman may, whenever he thinks fit, and shall, upon the written request of not less than one-half of the total number of members, call a special meeting. Sub-sec. (3) which is very material for our purpose reads thus: seven clear days' notice of an ordinary meeting and two clear days' notice of a special meeting specifying the place, date and time of such meeting and the business to be transacted thereat shall be given to the members and the Gramsevaks and posted in the office of the Panchayat. ( 4 ) RULE 2 of the No Confidence motion against Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Panchayat (Procedure) rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules') prescribes the procedure to, be followed in sending a notice of a motion of no confidence. ( 4 ) RULE 2 of the No Confidence motion against Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Panchayat (Procedure) rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules') prescribes the procedure to, be followed in sending a notice of a motion of no confidence. It provides that a notice of a, motion of no confidence 'against the Chairman or Vice Chairman of a Panchayat shall be in writing addressed to the Secretary of the Panchayat and in the form appended to the rule, signed by the member of the panchayat who intends to move the motion and shall contain the signature of not less than one-third of the total number of members of the Panchayat in token of their supporting the notice and in case the motion of no, confidence is against both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, separate notices, one in respect of the Chairman and the other in respect of the Vice-Chairman shall be given in the manner prescribed. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that on receipt of a notice under Rule-2, the secretary of the Panchayat shall immediately deliver a copy of such nqtice to the Chairman as well as to the Vice-Chairman and shall also immediately forward a copy of such notice to the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Board. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that the Chairman shall convene a special meeting for the purpose of considering the motion of no confidence within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. ( 5 ) IN the light of these provisions, i shall now consider the two fold contentions canvassed by Sri Deshpande. ( 6 ) TURNING to the first contention, there is no dispute that the motion of no confidence was signed by the required number of members as laid down in sub-section (1) of S. 32 of the act. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not call for the meeting as required under sub-section (1) within 30 days from the date of the notice, as he found that the motion was not in order. The petitioner has not made the necessary averments in the petition to point out how the motion was not in order. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not call for the meeting as required under sub-section (1) within 30 days from the date of the notice, as he found that the motion was not in order. The petitioner has not made the necessary averments in the petition to point out how the motion was not in order. He has merely stated in para 2 of the petition that the notice of the no confidence motion wag not in the form required under Rule 2 of the 'rules' and was not duly signed by the required members of the Committee. He did not point out the other alleged shortcomings. On going through the relevant provisions of the Act and also the Rules, it seems to me that once a notice of a motion of no confidence signed by the required number of members as provided under sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Act is given to the secretary of the Panchayat and when it is brought to the nqtice of the chairman, it is not open to the. Chairman, to refrain from calling the meeting within 30 days as provided in sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Act under the pretext that the motion of no confidence is not in order or on any other ground His simple duty, appears to me in such a situation, is to call for a meeting of the Panchayat within the time prescribed and allow the matter whether the motion is in order or not, to be considered by the panchayat at the meeting called by him for consideration at the said motion of no aonfidenre. I see no authority or discretion under law to the, Chairman, refraining from calling a meeting of the panchayat for the consideration of the motion of no confidence under any pretext much less on the ground adduced in the petition. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the second contention, sri Deshpande, thei learned Advocate has sought to rely upon sub-sec. (3) of S. 36 of the Act in support of his contention that 7 clear days notice is required for a, meeting to be called by the chief Executive Officer of the Taluk board when the Chairman of the Panchayat fails to call for a meeting within 30 days under sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Act. (3) of S. 36 of the Act in support of his contention that 7 clear days notice is required for a, meeting to be called by the chief Executive Officer of the Taluk board when the Chairman of the Panchayat fails to call for a meeting within 30 days under sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Act. This argument appears to proceed on the basis that the meeting to be called by the Chief Executive Officer under sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the act is an ordinary meeting of the Panchayat and in that case it really requires 7 clear days notice. However, sub-sec. (3) also provides that in the case of a special meeting 2 clear days notice is required rule 5 of the Rules stipulates that the meeting to be called by the chairman for the purpose of considering the motion of no confidence is a special meeting and in that view if the chairman fails to call such a special meeting, the meeting to be called by the Chief Executive Officer should also be a special meeting and that being so 2 clear days notice would be sufficient under sub-sec. (3) of S. 36 of the Act. Thus, I see no force in the second contention also. ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, I feel inclined to hold that no useful purpose would be served by issuing a rule nisi. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .