JUDGMENT 1. - As a result of death of Parbhatilal, who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Thathwadi, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu on January 17, 1985, the petitioner Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat took over as Sarpanch. In all there are 12 Panchas in the Gram Panchayat Thathwadi including Kanwar Singh and three co-opted members. A motion of no-confidence against Up-sarpanch, the petitioner. was submitted by Dulichand, non-petitioner No. 4 and others to the Additional District Development Officer (for short. ADDO). The ADDO under rule 5(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short, the Rules) fixed October 3, 1985 as the date for discussion of motion of no-confidence at 11 a m. in the Gram Panchayat Office Thathwadi & appointed Tehsildar Khetri to preside over and conduct the meeting. A notice of the meeting was given to the Panchas and the meeting was held on the date fixed as aforesaid. There were 7 panchas present and all of them voted in favour of the non-confidence motion which was declared to be carried through. 2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in this court on October 6, 1985 inter alia on the grounds that no copy of the notice of no confidence was enclosed even in the notice which was received by one Rameshwar Panch. The date of the alleged notice of motion of no confidence was not mentioned and even when the petitioner wanted to get a copy of the notice, it was not supplied to him; except Rameshwar. The date of the alleged notice of motion of no confidence was not mentioned and even when the petitioner wanted to get a copy of the notice, it was not supplied to him; except Rameshwar. Ramkishore Surajbhan and Smt. Badami Devi did not even receive any notice for consideration of the motion of no confidence issued by the ADDO; rule 14 of the Rules was not complied with; the ADDO did not apply his mind and did not exmine whether notice of motion of no-confidence was in order and as such the act of calling of special meeting of the Panches for consideration of the motion of no-confidence was illegal; Sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 15 of the Rules were not complied with inasmuch as the Tehsildar did not read the motion of no-confidence and two hours time was not allowed for discussion of the motion; rules 14,15 and 16 are invalid being inconsistent with the provisions of section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) and seven panchas who are said to have voted in favour of motion of no-confidence were detained in undisclosed place and the petitioner was not allowed to contact them and discuss the matter of no confidence motion with them and thereby the process was stiff led. It is also the case of the petitioner that the motion of no confidence by Dulichand was submitted in conspiracy with the 'bajri' contractors who became against him. 3. Notice of this petition was given to the non-petitioners and replies have been filed by Dulichand, non-petitioner No. 4 as well as by the respondent No. 1 to 3. In their replies the allegations contained in the writ petition have been denied except to the extent that a motion of no-confidence was made and that one khatik is excavating 'bajri' from the river 'dhan' as a contractor. The case of the respondents is that the notice of meeting for considering the motion of no confidence was sent to the petitioner and all panchas by registered post, from the Post Office Jhunjhunu on September 11, 1985 and the notice was delivered personally to the petitioner and other persons on September 14, 1985. The case of the respondents is that the notice of meeting for considering the motion of no confidence was sent to the petitioner and all panchas by registered post, from the Post Office Jhunjhunu on September 11, 1985 and the notice was delivered personally to the petitioner and other persons on September 14, 1985. So far as the petitioner is concerned it was personally delivered to him on September 14, 1985, A certificate issued by the Branch Post Office Thathwadi dated October 3, 1985 certifying the delivery of the registered letter to the petitioner, and other Panchas, namely Rameshwar, Surajbhan, Ramkumar and Badami Devi has been filed. The respondents have denied that seven panchas were not available in the panchayat area as per their case they were performing their primary functions. It is further the case of the respondents that the petitioner lost confidence in the majority of the panchas due to inactions and not performing and discharging his duties as Sarpanch. Because the quorum was complete at 11. am. motion was put for discussion which concluded at 11.30 am. Thereafter, the motion was put to vote and the same was carried through. The provisions of rule 13(4) and (5) according to the respondents are not mandatory and only procedural and no illegality was committed by the Presiding Officer in the conduct of the aforesaid proceedings. ADDO declared the office of Upsarpanch vacant by his order dated October 11, 1985 after motion of no-confidence had been carried through and the charge has been handed over to Dulichand who has been appointed by the Government to discharge the functions of Up-Sarpanch and in the absence of Sarpanch as Sarpanch. 4. There is no substance in the allegations of the petitioner that seven panchas who voted in support of the -notion of no-confidence were detained in undisclosed place. The allegations are of vague nature and that apart they have been denied by the respondents in their reply. Similarly, there is no substance in the allegation that the no-confidence has been made by Dulichand in connivance with the bajri contractors.I had, sent for the file in relation to the vote of no confidence against the petitioner and have perused it. It appears from the perusal of the said file that a motion expressing no-confidence in the petitioner was made by Dulichand and it was signed by Dulichand and other panchas of Ward Nos. It appears from the perusal of the said file that a motion expressing no-confidence in the petitioner was made by Dulichand and it was signed by Dulichand and other panchas of Ward Nos. 3, 8 and 2. Their signatures were verified by the Head Master of the Government Middle School Thatwadi. A look at the motion of no confidence will show that it is in accordance with rule 14 of the Rules it was delivered to the ADDO and it was signed by Dulichand and three others as aforesaid and their signatures have been attested by an officer of the State Government. The motion of no confidence thus was in order. It appears from the perusal of the file and the replies as aforesaid that the ADDO ordered fixing of the meeting for consideration of the same, issued notice to the panchas and appointed Tehsildar to preside over the meeting. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules that a copy of the motion of no confidence should be sent along with the notice of the meeting fixed for considering the same. A look at the notice Annexure-1 which as per the case of the petitioner was sent to Rameshwar Panch of Ward No. 5 and it was received by him, will show that the subject of the notice was special meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the motion of no confidence against Kanwar Singh, Up Sarpanch which has been made by Dulichand, Panch of the Gram Panchayat Thathwadi. Thus there was sufficient notice to the Panchas to whom the notice of the special meeting was sent by registered post as to what was the purpose for the meeting which was to take place on October 3, 1985. Under rule 15(4) of the Rules it the requisite quorum is present at the time fixed for the meeting or within half an hour of such time, the presiding officer shall read the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for discussion. Therefore, it is not the requirement of law that a copy of the motion of no confidence should be annexed alongwith the notice issued by the ADDO for consideration of the meeting. 5. Therefore, it is not the requirement of law that a copy of the motion of no confidence should be annexed alongwith the notice issued by the ADDO for consideration of the meeting. 5. There appears no dispute that a notice for the date, time and place for consideration of the motion of no-confidence must be given to all the Panchas. So far as seven panchas who took part in the special meeting and voted in favour of no confidence motion against the petitioner are concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that no notice was given to them and their presence and participation at the special meeting goes to show that notice was received by them. The case of the petitioner is that Rameshwar only received the notice and Ramkumar, Surajbhan and Smt. Badami did not receive any notice. In support of the same the petitioner has filed affidavits of the said three persons. But no reliance can be placed on those affidavits and the reason is that even the affidavit of Rameshwar non-petitioner No. 10 has been filed to the effect that he too never received the notice dated September 9, 1985 issued by the ADDO for the special meeting convened for October 3, 1985 for consideration of motion of no confidence against Up-sarpanch when as a matter of fact in para No. I it has been averred that except Rameshwar, they (Ram Kishore, Surajbhan and Smt. Badami Devi) told that they have not received any notice issued by the ADDO of the proposed motion. In para No. 9 again it has been stated that the fact of the notice of motion came to the notice of the petitioner when one notice was received by one Shri Rameshwar Panch. An exact copy of the notice dated September 9, 1985 as received by Rameshwar Panch has been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure I. Alongwith the reply, certificate from the Post Master, Branch Post Office Thathwadi has been filed certifying that the notice was delivered to all the three panchas who have been named in the certificate including the petitioner Kanwar Singh. A perusal of the file which was sent for, and a reference to which has been made, will further show that postal receipts of all the notices sent to all the 12 panchas are available in it. A perusal of the file which was sent for, and a reference to which has been made, will further show that postal receipts of all the notices sent to all the 12 panchas are available in it. There is material on record and it can be said that notices for consideration of motion of no confidence were sent and delivered to all the panchas and seven panchas attended whereas five including the petitioner absented inspite of notice. Thus, there has been compliance with the rules. 6. The meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence against the petitioner which was held on October 3, 1985 and started at 11. a.m, and from the proceedings available on the file which was sent for no doubt, the proceedings do not appear to have been recorded as per the requirement of rule 16 (1) of the Rules inasmuch as the motion in extenso has not been set-forth in it, but it appears from the perusal of the minutes of the special meeting that after the quorum was there, the discussion of the motion of no confidence has been done and seven panchas voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence, it was declared to have been carried through against the petitioner. Merely because the proceedings have not been recorded as required by rule I (1) of the Rules inasmuch as the motion of no confidence has not been set forth in extenso it cannot be said that the result has been materially affected. Rule 16 (1) is not a mandatory rule and it is only a procedural one. In a democratic set up if the majority of the members of a body where the motion has been carried through by majority have no confidence and as such the Sarpanch has lost confidence, he has no right to continue. In my opinion the motion was carried through by majority of the panchas against Up-sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 7. A special meeting fixed and convened for consideration of the motion of no confidence cannot be presided by a Sarpanch and it has to be presided over by an officer appointed by the ADDO to whom the motion of no confidence is to be submitted. Rules 14, 15 and 16 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules. 1961 are neither invalid nor inconsistent with the provisions of section 19 of the Act. 8. Rules 14, 15 and 16 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules. 1961 are neither invalid nor inconsistent with the provisions of section 19 of the Act. 8. In the result, I find no merits in the writ petition. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******