JUDGMENT 1. These four writ petitions relate to the `no confidence motion' against Sarpanch under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules made thereunder. 2. Two writ petitions filed by Kurdaram and Banney Singh relate to the 'no confidence motion' against Kurdaram Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Dewas, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar. Other two writ petitions filed by Suresh Kumar and Hardayal Singh relate to `no confidence motion' against Suresh Kumar, Grain Panchayat Barwasi Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. While Kurdaram and Suresh Kumar Sarpanchas of their respective panchayats have filed writ petitions for seeking direction from the court that `no confidence motion' submitted against them should not be considered and treated as invalid. The counter writ petitions of Shree Banney Singh and Hardayal Singh on behalf of the Panchas of respective villages of Panchayats prayed that immediate steps should be taken to oust Sarpanch because he has lost `confidence' and no vice to circumvent the `no confidence motion' should be allowed to succeed. 3. In order to be precise, it would be convenient to reproduce the prayer clauses in the writ petitions of Kurdaram and Banney Singh relating to same Panchayat : 1. S.B. Civ. Writ Pet. No. 2019/81 Kurdaram v. State ; "It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships be pleased to call for and examine the entire record relating to this case and the impugned notices and orders Ex. 1 to Ex. 4 be declared to be illegal and be quashed and set aside and all consequential directions be issued. (ii) The provisions of section 19 of the Panchayat Act, 1953 read with rule 14 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat General Rules be declared to be ultravires of Article 14 of the Cons titution of India, and be struck down as such." 2. S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 342/82 Banney Singh v. State "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that (i) Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to call for and the record relaexamine ting to this case; and (ii) To quash the order dated 22-1-82 (Annexure 5) of the Govt. of Raj. sent to the Dy. Distt. S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 342/82 Banney Singh v. State "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that (i) Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to call for and the record relaexamine ting to this case; and (ii) To quash the order dated 22-1-82 (Annexure 5) of the Govt. of Raj. sent to the Dy. Distt. Development Officer, Sikar and copies endorsed to the Collector Sikar and Vikash Adhikari, Fatchpur and further issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the Hon'ble court may deem proper, restraining the Government of Rajasthan not to postpone any further the meeting which may be called for the consideration of the motion of no confidence, in pursuance of the notice given by the Panchas; and (iii) Your Lordships may be further pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to fix a date immediately for the consideration of the no-confidence against the non-petitioner No. 3 in pursuance of the notice given by the petitioners. (iv) Your Lordships may also be pleased to consolidate/connect the writ petition SBCW No. 2019/82 with the present writ petition and the matter involved therein being of urgent nature and decide the same at the earliest. (v) Cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners against the non-petitioner No. 2. 3. S.B. CW No. 439/1982 Suresh Kumar v. State It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to accept this writ petition, call for the record of the case and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:- i/- declaring Section 19 of the Act as ultravires of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution; ii/- restraining the respondents in taking any action in pursuance to the notice dated 1-4-82; iii/- restraining the respondents for holding the meeting dated 12-4-82 in pursuance of the notice dated 1-4-82; iv/- declaring Rule 14 (2) of the Rules as invalid and void; Cost be awarded to the petitioner." 4. SBCW No. 371/82 Hardayal Singh v. State "Your Lordships' humble petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that (i) Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to call for and examine the record relating to this case from the respondent No.2 and direct him by an appropriate writ, order or direction to recognise the minutes passed in the meeting dated 8-3-82 (Ann. SBCW No. 371/82 Hardayal Singh v. State "Your Lordships' humble petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that (i) Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to call for and examine the record relating to this case from the respondent No.2 and direct him by an appropriate writ, order or direction to recognise the minutes passed in the meeting dated 8-3-82 (Ann. 2) and also direct the respondent No. 2 to remove the respondent No. 3 from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Barwasi, P.S. Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu with immediate effect; or (ii) In the alternative, Your Lordships may be pleassed to direct the respondent No. 2 to fix an early date for the consideration of the motion of no confidence against the respondent No. 3, in pursuance of the notice dated 1-3-82 (Ann. 1.). (iii) It is also requested that Your Lordships be further pleased to consolidate/connect the writ petition-SBCW No. 93/82 with the present writ petition and decide them at the earliest as the matter involved being of urgent nature; (iv) Cost be also awarded' to the petitioner". 4. An important question raised in all these four cases relates to the validity of the provisions regarding `no confidence motion' and, therefore, the question which is to be decided as common question, is whether Section 19 of the Act and Rule 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayats General Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') are valid. 5. Before I proceed to consider the validity of Section 19 of the Act and the R. 14 (2) of the Rules, it would be convenient to mention the facts of both the cases. In Kurdaram's case, the brief facts are as under:- "Election to the Panchayat Dewas, Tehsil Fatehpur District Sikar took place on 14th December, 1981 when Shri Kurda Ram was elected as Sarpanch and the non-petitioners No. 3 to 12 as Panchas. Non-petitioners No. 13 to 15 were co-opted on 15th December, 1981. A motion of no-confidence was given by one Gumana Ram (Respdt. No. 4) on 18th December, 1981 signed by 11 panchas out of total of 14. January 2, 1982 was fixed as the date for the consideration of no confidence motion. Shri Kurda Ram managed to get this meeting postponed by the Government, as is apparent from Annexure 1 in writ petition No. 342,182. No. 4) on 18th December, 1981 signed by 11 panchas out of total of 14. January 2, 1982 was fixed as the date for the consideration of no confidence motion. Shri Kurda Ram managed to get this meeting postponed by the Government, as is apparent from Annexure 1 in writ petition No. 342,182. It was against this meeting of dated 2nd January, 1982 that Shri Kurda Ram also filed a writ petition before this court and obtained a stay order. (writ petition No. 2019/81). The Panchas filed a fresh notice for the motion of no confidence on 5th January, 1982 and 23rd January, 1982 was fixed as the date for its consideration. In the meantime the Government of Rajasthan vacated the stay order dated 31st December, 1981 and directed the Collector, Sikar on 11th January, 1982 to take further action in the matter (Ann. 3 of writ No. 342/82)." 6. Kurdaram again applied to the Panchayat Minister to get the meeting dated 23rd January, 1982 postponed. (Ann. 4 writ No. 342/82) and was successful in getting it postponed vide Govt. order dated 22-1-82 (Ann. 5 in writ No. 342/82). It was under these circumstances that the 11 panchas had also to approach this Court in a separate writ petition with the request that the Government order dated 22-1-82 be also quashed, apart from dismissing the writ petition No.2019/81 filed by Sarpanch Kurda Ram. 7. In Suresh Kumar's writ petition the facts may now be narrated and they are narrated in brief as under: "The election to the Gram Panchayat Barwasi Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu took place on 14th December, 198I when Shri Suresh Kumar, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch and the non-petitioners No. 4 to 11 as the panchas. Non-petitioner No. 12 & 13 were co-opted as Panchas on 15th December, 1981. A motion of no confidence was submitted by 10 panchas i.e. respondent No. 4 to 13 on 24th December, 1981 in pursuance of which a notice was issued to convene a fleeting on 29th December, 1981 and 11th January, 1982 was fixed as the date for its consideration. This meeting dated 11th January, 1982 was, however, stayed by an order of the State Government but later on by an another notice dated the 12th January, 1982 the Dy. Distt. This meeting dated 11th January, 1982 was, however, stayed by an order of the State Government but later on by an another notice dated the 12th January, 1982 the Dy. Distt. Development Officer Jhunjhunu fixed 23rd January, 1982 as the next date for the considerationi of the motion of no confidence.The petitioner there upon filed a writ petition No.93/82 before this Hon'ble High Court and on 18th January, 1982 the same was admitted and a stay was granted restraining the respondents from convening the meeting. The stay granted by this court was vacated on 18th March, 1982, hence the Dy. Distt. Development Officer vide its notice dated 1st April, 1982 fixed 12th April, 1982 for the consideration of the same motion. The Sarpanch therefore, filed another writ petition No. 439/82 and this was also admitted but on 9th April, 1982 the stay was granted only to the extent that the meeting dated 12th April, 1982 be allowed to be held but the result be not declared till the case is finally heard on merits." 8. Before I proceed to examine the validity of the relevant provisions, I must mention that the invoking of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for staying in power or office against a democratic verdict or threatened democratic ouster cannot be appreciated because Article 226 provides jurisdiction to this Court which is both, equitable and extra-ordinary, I had occasion to deal with the history of Panchayat Raj in Rajasthan in a similar situation and I observed in (I) Surataram v. Addl. District Development Officer. Ajmer AIR 1979 Raj. 186 as under:- "typical example of attempt of an undemocratic Sarpanch to flout Majority verdict on the wheels of legal technicalities'". In para 40, 1 have observed as under : "Thus, when out of 13 members of panchayat admittedly 10 have voted against Sarpanch conditions of Section 10 for passing of no confidence motion by 3/4 majority are fulfilled. Viewed with this angle, the quoting of sub-rules (7) & (4) of R. 15 by the ousted Sarpanch against express wording of Section 19, appears to me like "Devil quoting Scriptures", I would not permit this to happen to make it 'mockery of justice,". Viewed with this angle, the quoting of sub-rules (7) & (4) of R. 15 by the ousted Sarpanch against express wording of Section 19, appears to me like "Devil quoting Scriptures", I would not permit this to happen to make it 'mockery of justice,". Again in para 43, I have emphasised same theme in the following words:- "This court cannot become a party to such inceremonious undemocratic functioning of the Sarpanch, against the express declared will of the ten panchas, out of thirteen by thrusting him as a Sarpanch on the ground of so called irregularities or violations. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that Sarpanch Suratram lost the confidence of the requisite number of majority of panchas in this village panchayat and whatever happened on 30th of December, 1978 was a designed effort by the Sarpanch in collusion with the Tehsildar to thrust himself in the seat of Sarpanch by questionable methods which requires to be deprecated by this Court. It would be for the State Government to ascertain the actual guilt of Tehsildar Kekari by a regular inquiry under the provisions of the law, after giving full opportunity to the delinquent officer and then if found guilty, to take appropriate action so that such recurrences are not made and the State functionaries should not go with the impression that they can go 'scot free' even after adopting such questionable methods." 9. However, in the present case, it is necessary to examine the validity of Section 19 of the Act, as important arguments were advanced by both the learned Counsel, Shri M.R. Calla and Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, appearing on behalf of the Sarpanchas in all these four cases. Shri Dhankhar as well as Shri Calla have argued that a Sarpanch is elected by the entire village panchayat electorates, which means, all the electors voters of the Gram panchayat, and he further gets a verdict in his favour by majority of the entire village. He is not elected by the panchas. A panch is elected by the electorates or the voters of particular ward. These panchas exert their full influence either for or against the Sarpanch in the process of the election of a Sarpanch. The electorates of the entire village are thousands of voters. The Panchas are usually 10 to 15 or so in number. A panch is elected by the electorates or the voters of particular ward. These panchas exert their full influence either for or against the Sarpanch in the process of the election of a Sarpanch. The electorates of the entire village are thousands of voters. The Panchas are usually 10 to 15 or so in number. On the above bed-rock, it was argued that when a Sarpanch is elected by thou- sands of voters, how can 10 or 15 of them who also happened to be voters undo the verdict of the majority of the entire electorates of the village. It was argued that it is against the basic principles of democracy and is inconsistence with the other provisions of the Panchayat Act to permit a few Panchas to oust Sarpanch who has been elected by the thousands of electors. Section 19 (1) & (2) read as under:- "19:- Motion of no confidence. (1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by any elected or co-opted Panch after giving such notice as may be prescribed against the Sarpanch or Up- Sarpanch. (2) If the motion against the Sarpanch is carried by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of members of the Panchayat including Sarpanch but excluding the associate Panchas or if the motion against Up-Sarpanch is carried by a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat including Sarpanch but excluding the associate Panchas, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall within 3 days of the passing of the motion resign his office by submitting his resignation to the (officer incharge of Panchayat) and thereupon his office shall be deemed to be vacant). 10. It would be clear from the above that motion of no confidence against Sarpanch is to be carried by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of members of the Panchayat including Sarpanch but excluding the associate Panchas. The plenary powers of the legislature to enact this provision in the Rajasthan Panchayats, is not under challenge. Section 13 of the Act provides for Sarpanch. Section 13 runs as under: "Sarpanch and Upsarpanch-(1) Every Panchayat shall have a Sarpanch who must be a person qualified to be elected as a Panch and able to read and write Hindi and shall be elected by electors of the whole Panchayat circle in the prescribed manner. Section 13 of the Act provides for Sarpanch. Section 13 runs as under: "Sarpanch and Upsarpanch-(1) Every Panchayat shall have a Sarpanch who must be a person qualified to be elected as a Panch and able to read and write Hindi and shall be elected by electors of the whole Panchayat circle in the prescribed manner. (2) Every Panchayat shall have an Up-Sarpanch who must be person able to read and write Hindi and shall be elected (in the prescribed manner by the Sarpanch and the elected and co-opted Panchas as from amongst the elected and co-opted Panchas. (3) If the electors of a Panchayat circle fail to elect Sarpanch in accordance with this section or if the Panchas fail to elect Up- Sarpanch the State Government shall appoint a person to the vacancy till such vacancy is filled up by election within a period of six months and the person so appointed shall be deemed to be duly elected Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be. (4) Except as provided above a Sarpanch shall hold office during the term of the Panchayat and an Up-Sarpanch as long as he continues to be a Panch of the Panchayat." Sub-s. (I) of Section 13 provides that Sarpanch shall be elected by electors of the whole Panchayat circle in the prescribed manner. 11. I have not been able to appreciate, how Section 19 has been repugnant to Section 13 or any other provisions of Panchayat Act. Section 13 is a provision for election and Section 19 provides for 'no confidence motion'. The two deal with different situation and there is no repugnancy amongst then. From the submission of Shri Dhankhar & Shri Calla, what I could gather, was that 'no confidence motion' even should be in the nature of a right to recall elected persons and, that right should be exercised by the same electorate. To illustrate, if the entire village is electorate for calling a Sarpanch he should not be removed except by way of re-calling motion by the same electorate of the entire village. The argument that one who has been elected by thousand of persons cannot be unseated by 'no confidence motion' of a few 10 or 15 persons, seemingly, appears to be attractive to a layman and common man. The argument that one who has been elected by thousand of persons cannot be unseated by 'no confidence motion' of a few 10 or 15 persons, seemingly, appears to be attractive to a layman and common man. It also appears to be logical and plausible but on a legal scrutiny this layman's argument ultimately turns out to be wholly untenable in the legal frame work. The plenary powers of the legislature has not been challenged and cannot be challenged. That being so, it is in the wisdom of the legislature to provide any procedure or requirement for election, removal, no confidence motion, or such other matters. 12. The court has got its limited .jurisdiction. A provision of the Act can only be ultravires if either it is beyond scope of the legislature or it contravenes any other provisions of the Constitution. A right to recall and no confidence in that form is a political issue foreign to judicial review. So far as neither the members of the Parliament, members of the legislature or members of the Panchayats can be re-called nor any such provision has been made in respect of right to recall even by those legislators or parliamentarian who at one point of time were in majority, even though they were patronogists of this political philosophy. Be that as it may, this controversy is foreign and out- side scope of this court and all that can be said is that as the Panchayat Act exists and as the Representation of People Act exists and so also the Municipalities Act and various other laws of the land, the electors of the constituencies have not been given a right to re-call by majority verdict. Whether Indian democracy is unsuitable for it or it would be a luxurious experiment in poor country like the India, or legislators, once elected do not want to divest their right and remain at the verdict of the electorates during the entire tenure or such a right to recall would create unstability and uncertainty all are reasons which may be justified or unjustified and which may exist or non-exist, but the basic fact remains that none of these democratically elected legislators or Panchas or members of Municipalities can be recalled and so also the Sarpanch. 13. 13. I have therefore, no hesitation in holding that Section 19 is not hit and is not violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. There cane of be any generalisation like democratic principles, as argued by Shri Dhankhar and Shri Calla, because democracy is a word of very wide import and it has got several connotations, implications, interpretations and definitions depending upon the political will and philosophy of that particular country or unit. This court cannot decide what should be the democratic process and that controversy is wholly outside the purview of the powers of the adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. Shri Dhankhar argued that whereas a Sarpanch can be ousted by 'no confidence motion' but a Panch cannot be and that violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. I am constrained to observe that the functions, duties and responsibilities of a Sarpanch who becomes the executive functionary in addition to the policy maker of the village Panchayat are very different from a Parch, who only can give an opinion when a motion is put before the Panchayat and nothing more. The two are not similarly situated and there- fore, Article 14 cannot be invoked. 15. The 'no confidence motion' are not provided against the members of the Municipalities, members of the legislatures of State Assembly and members of Parliament but that all is the wisdom of legislative authorities and this Court cannot question it as it is political issue and not a legal one. 16. In Surtaram's case (supra) I have dealt with at length the history of Panchayat institution in India and in para 3 to 8, I have observed as under:- "The age old concept of "Panch Parmeshwar" Panch is God, which was prevalent in ancient India, disappeared completely during British rule in India. The institution of Panchayat Raj or village Panchayat has been an institution existing from times immemorial in this country but during British rule this institution collapsed. 4. The Indian Independence of 1947 and its Constitution again revised the 'Panchayat' concept by placing it in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The framers of the Indian Constitution, enacted Article 40 as follows : "The State shall take steps to organise village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self Government". "5. The framers of the Indian Constitution, enacted Article 40 as follows : "The State shall take steps to organise village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self Government". "5. The Community Development Programme was initiated in the country in 1952. In 1957, a committee on plan projects was appointed by the National Development Council which in turn further appointed a study Team under the Chairmanship of late Shri Balwant Rai Mehta which recommended a three tier pattern of Panchayati Raj institutions in the country based on the philosophy of "Democratic Decentralisation'. This recommendation was accepted by the National Development Council in 1959 which inter alia decided that "while the broad pattern and the fundamentals may be uniform, there should not be any rigidity in the pattern. In fact, the country is so large and Panchayati Raj is so complex a subject with far reaching consequences, that there is the fullest scope of trying out various patterns and alternatives. What is most important is the genuine transfer of power to the people. If this is ensured, form and pattern may necessarily vary according to conditions prevailing in different States". "In pursuance of this decision taken by the National Development Council in 1959, Rajasthan had the distinction of being the first in the whole country (alongwith Andhra Pradesh) to have launched upon Panchayati Raj on 2-10-59, which was inaugurated by the late Prime Minister Shri Jawaher Lal Nehru at Nagaur. At the time the scheme of Democratic Decentralisation was initiated in Rajasthan, there was great enthusiasm for it both among officials and non-officials: various other States in fact were encouraged by the lead given by Rajasthan and enacted necessary laws for the purpose. To ensure sustained growth of Panchayats Raj Institutions in the State on right lines, various studies were undertaken from time to time in regard to growth of Panchayati Raj Institutions in different spheres of their activities. Panchayati Raj Study team under the Chairmanship of Shri Sadiq Ali, the then member of Parliament was appointed in 1962 which gave its comprehensive report to the Government in 1964. The Naik Committee (1963) and the Bhandari Committee (1969) also made valuable recommendations regarding Primary Education and the role of Panchayati Raj Institutions in this respect. Panchayati Raj Study team under the Chairmanship of Shri Sadiq Ali, the then member of Parliament was appointed in 1962 which gave its comprehensive report to the Government in 1964. The Naik Committee (1963) and the Bhandari Committee (1969) also made valuable recommendations regarding Primary Education and the role of Panchayati Raj Institutions in this respect. Various studies have also been carried out by the Evaluation Organisation from time to time in specified spheres of the activities of Panchayati Raj." "6. The High Power Committee of Rajasthan set up in 1971 and known as Vyas Committee also discussed the topic of "No confidence Motion" against Sarpanch at page 28 Para 3.27 in its report of 1973, which reads as under: "No Confidence Motion:-In case of Sarpanch, the no confidence motion can he passed by 3/4 of the total number of the specified panchas and in case of Up-Sarpanch it could be passed by a simple majority of total number of such panchas. In case of the first no-confidence motion against Pradhan, ⅔ majority of the total number of members of Panchayat Samiti is needed before it could be carried. In case of subsequent no confidence motion, a simple majority of the total electoral college (which elected the Pradhan) is needed. In case of first no confidence motion against Up-Pradhan ⅔ majority of the total numbers of member of the Panchayat Samiti is required. A simple majority of such members of the Panchayat Samiti would be sufficient to carry a second no confidence motion against him. Similar provisions for no confidence motion against the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh. With the proposed Shrunken electoral college of the Pradhan and Pramhukh, the no confidence motion should also now be passed only by the voting members of the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad both in the case of Pradhan/Up-Pradhan and Pramukh respectively. Regarding the existing provision of ⅔ and 3/4 majority required in the first and subsequent no confidence motion against the Pradhan and the Pramukh and the 3/4 majority required in the case of Sarpanch, the Committee feels that it provides undue security to these posts. An optimum blend between adequate security and easy removability of such office bearers of these institutions would alone provide an inbuilt mechanism against excessive security of such elected persons. An optimum blend between adequate security and easy removability of such office bearers of these institutions would alone provide an inbuilt mechanism against excessive security of such elected persons. We,therefore recommend that after their election the Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch, Pradhan, Pramukh and Up-Pramukh should he free from the everhanging Damocles' sword of no confidence motion for at least one year. This would provide sufficient time for them to settle down for concrete work and to justify the confidence reposed by the electorate. After one year, the Pradhan. Up-pradhan, Praniukh and Up-pramukh should be removable by a no confidence motion passed against them by a no-confidence motion passed against simple majority of the voting members of the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parished as the case may be. In case of the Sarpanch, he should be removable by ⅔ majority of voting panchas instead of 3,4 majority required at present. The Up-Sarpanch should be removable by a no-confidence motion carried by a simple majority of total number of such panchas." "7. The State Govt. have not so far accepted its recommendation and it is now considering the report of another still more important and all India committee, which is popularly known as "Ashok Mehta Committee" for improvement of panchayat functioning. "8. Be that as it may, in the above historical background, the implications of provisions of "No confidence motion" against Sarpanch contained in Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act of 1953 and Rule 15 is to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. I would now proceed to mention first the facts of the case. 17. I have also considered the recommendations of Girdharilal Vyas Committee in para 6 while dealing with no confidence motion and observed as indicated above. It would be seen that even Girdharilal Vyas Committee has not recommended the amendment of section 19 of the Act in order to deprive the Panchas from their right to express `no confidence motion' in the Sarpanch. 18. In my considered opinion the petitioners have failed to make out any case for striking down Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act or relevant rules made thereunder. 19. Shri Calla in his writ application pointed out that six months time should at least be granted to a Sarpanch to do some work. 18. In my considered opinion the petitioners have failed to make out any case for striking down Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act or relevant rules made thereunder. 19. Shri Calla in his writ application pointed out that six months time should at least be granted to a Sarpanch to do some work. In that connection Section 39 of the Rajasthan Zila Parishad and Panchayat Santiti Act was referred to. It is true that such a provision exists in Section 39 for Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. But here again, it is wisdom of the legislature, and this Court cannot act as a third chamber or a superior legislature. The petitioners should make this appeal in the legislature and the court cannot part take character of the legislature. 20. Yet another point argued by Shri Calla was that in his case, the Panchas have not taken oath and there they cannot submit motion of no confidence. This objection was rejected in (2) AIR 1979 Raj. 74 Gopilal's case. Even otherwise, all the panchas have taken oath on 1st January, 1982 and a fresh notice of 'no confidence motion' has been given on 5th January, 1982 after taking oath. 21. Shri Calla also argued that the motion has been moved before the Collector (Panchayat) and not before the Deputy District Development Officer. The Collector (Panchayat) is the District Development Officer of the Parchayat and he has got all the powers of a Deputy District Development Officer. I am unable to appreciate this technical objection of Shri Calla. In any case, as held in Suratram's case, I am not inclined to accept such technical objection in my extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. 22. Shri Dhankhar submitted that a co-opted member should not be given a right to pass a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch. Here again, the right is a statutory right and not a common law right and nothing can prevent the legislature from conferring such a right on a co-opted member. 23. In Kurdaram's case and the counter case of Banney Singh Shri Mathur made a grievance that the Panchayat Minister issued the orders for postponing the meeting of the no-confidence motion, although the earlier post of the earlier motion has become insignificant in view of the subsequent motion. I need not deal in details, the question of validity of the orders of Panchayat Minister. I need not deal in details, the question of validity of the orders of Panchayat Minister. However, I must observe that when Section 19 of the Act provides for no-confidence motion and rules has been made for laying down the procedure, the political functionary of the State in the absence of express provisions under the Panchayat Act should not disturb the normal statutory functioning of these bodies on the ground, on which I have observed that the court cannot act as a third chamber or superior legislature. I, with due respect, may however, observe that the Ministers concerned should also keep the same restraint in the matter of confidence motion' meeting and should not disturb the statutory process of holding the meeting by which it can be tested whether 3/4 majority is against Sarpanch or not. If it is against that Sarpanch then it would not only be undemocratic but unbecoming and highly unethical for political functionary to make any effort to keep Sarpanch in power. This caution should be kept in view in the interest of maintaining rule of law and upholding a right of 34 panchas to oust a Sarpanch. In view of the above, I have not been called upon to decide whether Panchayat Minister is competent to pass a stay order and, I have refrained from doing so, except to the limited extent. I have done as the case warrants. 24. The result of the above discussion is that I hold that Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and Rule 14 & 15 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat General Rules are valid and they are intravires. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2019/81 Kurdaram v. State , and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 439/82 Suresh Kumar v. State , are dismissed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 342/82 Banney Singh v. State is accepted and the respondents are directed to hold the meeting of `no confidence motion', if they have not been held so far and, act according to the verdict given at such a meeting in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. It may however be observed that in Suresh Kumar's writ after vacation of the stay order, I have opened the envelope which contained the result of `no-confidence motion,' as was earlier directed on 9th April, 1982 and the result of no confidence motion is against Shri Suresh Kumar. It may however be observed that in Suresh Kumar's writ after vacation of the stay order, I have opened the envelope which contained the result of `no-confidence motion,' as was earlier directed on 9th April, 1982 and the result of no confidence motion is against Shri Suresh Kumar. It is, therefore, ordered that Suresh Kumar should vacate his office of Sarpanch Barwasi if he has not vacated it so far, and Kurdaram should also act according to the decision of meeting in respect of no-confidence motion. Kurdaram and Suresh Kumar, the petitioners in their respective writ petitions would pay the costs of the respondents in the writ petitions filed by them. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 371/1982, Hardayal Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and others is dismissed as withdrawn. *******