JUDGMENT 1. A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pradhan Shiv Dayal Gupta, respondent No. 4 of Panchayat Samiti, Umrain under Section 39 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made by as many as 15 members of the above named Panchayat Samiti. The Collector, Alwar appointed the Additional Collector, Alwar as the officer to preside over the meeting which was fixed on January 13, 1986 at 11.00 a.m. for consideration of the above motion expressing want of confidence. Notices like Annexure-3 were issued by the Collector to the members of the Panchayat Samiti and in the headquarter of the Panchayat Samiti, Umrain on January 13, 1986 the Additional Collector was present. At 11.00 a.m the time fixed for the meeting, it appears that the quorum of the meeting was not complete. The Additional Collector waited till 11.15 a.m. and thereafter in the absence of quorum the proceedings of the meeting could not take place. The Additional Collector recorded the proceedings. It appears that at 11.20 a.m. after the Additional Collector had taken a decision that the proceedings cannot commence because of lack of quorum, as many as 23 members of the Panchayat Samiti appeared before the Additional Collector and made an application (Annexure-4). wherein it was requested that the Additional Collector should reconsider his decision. The Additional Collector did not agree to the prayer made in the application. The petitioners numbering 22 filed the present writ petition in this Court, wherein prayers have been made that it be declared that the motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4 Shiv Dayal Gupta, Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti. Umrain should he deemed to have been carried and alternatively it has been prayed that the Collector, Alwar be directed to convene another meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence against Shiv Dayal Gupta. 2. This Court issued notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. I and 3 as well as by respondent No. 4. 3. 2. This Court issued notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. I and 3 as well as by respondent No. 4. 3. The only question for adjudication in this writ petition is as to whether the Additional Collector, who presided over the meeting on January 13, 1986 for the consideration of the motion expressing want of confidence in Shiv Dayal Gupta should have waited after 11.00 a.m., the time fixed for the meeting for the quorum for the meeting' Sub-Section (14) of Section 39 of the Act provides as to what shall be the quorum to constitute a meeting for the consideration of a no-confidence motion against the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. Under the afore- said provision the quorum to constitute the meeting for the consideration of no- confidence motion against the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall be one third of the total number of persons entitled to vote thereat. Section 39 of the Act does not provide for any time for the quorum of the meeting after the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting. The Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Motion of No-Confidence in Pradhan. Up-Pradhan. Pramukh or Up Pramukh) Rules, 1961 were framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred on it by sub-section (I) of Section 79 read with Sections 39 and 49 of the Act, these Rules were framed in supersession of the Department's Notification dated September 26. 1961. In these Rules also, there is no provision providing for time for the quorum to constitute meeting from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting. A meeting can only he said to have commenced for the consideration of the no-confidence motion when the quorum will be complete in accordance with sub-section (14) of Section 39 of the Act. Under sub-section (12) of Section 39 of the Act if the motion is not carried or if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall he made until after the expiration of six months from the date of such meeting. A different procedure for the consideration of the subsequent no-confidence motion is prescribed. 4. The contention of Mr. A different procedure for the consideration of the subsequent no-confidence motion is prescribed. 4. The contention of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners is that notwithstanding the fact that there is no provision in sub-section (14) of Section 39 of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, that the Collector or the Additional Collector, who is to preside over the meeting convened for the purpose of consideration of no-confidence motion should wait for some time for the quorum to constitute meeting after 11.00 a. m., the time fixed for consideration of the motion., it is necessary for the Presiding Officer as aforesaid to have waited for reasonable time for the quorum to constitute meeting and only there- after he could have taken a decision to the effect that the meeting cannot be held for want of the quorum. It is also contended by him that even under other Acts except the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and more so in Rule 15 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules. 1961 there is no provision providing for time for the quorum of meeting after the time fixed for the meeting. He, therefore, contends that notwithstanding that there is no provision, it was necessary for the Additional Collector to have waited for reasonable time, which, in his opinion, should have been at least an hour. It is also contended by him that the very fact that no provision has been made either under Section 39 of the Act or under the Rules for the time within which the quorum for transaction of the no-confidence motion is to assemble, the intention of the Legislature is obvious that the time allowed for the quorum to assemble for the other meetings of the Panchayat Samiti should be allowed within which the quorum for consideration of the motion of no-confidence is to assemble. Rule 15 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules. 1961 has no relevance so far as the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion against Pradhan and others. It provides that if 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 op.,n for discussion. It provides that if 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 op.,n for discussion. Therefore, so far as a meeting for consideration of the motion in a Panch. Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch is concerned, it has been clearly provided that the officer presiding the meeting has to wait for half an hour from the time fixed for the meeting to sec as to whether the quorum for the meeting is there or not. Under sub-section (14) of Section 39 of the Act all that has been provided is as to what shall be the quorum to constitute a meeting for the consideration of the no-confidence motion against Pradhan. There is no provision that if the requisite quorum is not present at the time fixed for the meeting, the presiding officer has to wait for some time to see as to whether the requisite quorum is there or not. Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules. 1960 deals with the quorum for the conduct of business of the Panchayat Samiti. Sub- Rule (1) of Rule 10 of those Rules provides that if the quorum of the meeting is not complete within one hour of the time fixed for the meeting, then the meeting shall be adjourmed to a next date, but if all the members present agree then they can wait for one more hour to see as to whether the requisite quorum is complete or not. Those Rules which are for the conduct of business of the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads cannot be made applicable to the meeting convened for the consideration of the no-confidence motion in the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. It cannot, therefore, be said that the presiding officer of the meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion was bound to follow Rule 10 of the above Rules, which, as already stated earlier, have no relevance so far as the meeting convened for the consideration of no-confidence motion under Section 39 of the Act is concerned. 5. It cannot, therefore, be said that the presiding officer of the meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion was bound to follow Rule 10 of the above Rules, which, as already stated earlier, have no relevance so far as the meeting convened for the consideration of no-confidence motion under Section 39 of the Act is concerned. 5. A meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion of no- confidence under Section 39 of the Act cannot be adjourned and if the quorum is complete, then the motion is to be declared open for debate. If it is carried with the support of not less than ⅔rd of the total (other than the members specified in clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of sub-section (I) of Section 8 of the Act) then it shall be declared as carried through and if not carried through as afore said or the meeting is adjourned for want of quorum, then the presiding officer has to decide accordingly. There is no dispute between the parties that the meeting was to commence at 11.00 a. in. on January 13, 1986, in other words the time appointed for the commencement -of the meeting was 11.00 a, m, on January 13, 1986. There is also no dispute that till 11.15 a. m. the quorum as required under sub-section (14) of Section 39 was not complete and at 11.15 a. m. the Additional Collector held that the meeting could not be held for want of the quorum. The Additional Collector, thus, waited for 15 minutes to see as to whether the requisite quorum is present or not and thereafter took a decision. At 11.20 a, m. as many as 23 members of the Panchayat Samiti filed an application, but by that time the Additional Collector had already taken a decision as provided in sub-section (12) of Section 39 of the Act. At 11.20 a, m. as many as 23 members of the Panchayat Samiti filed an application, but by that time the Additional Collector had already taken a decision as provided in sub-section (12) of Section 39 of the Act. Even if there is no provision under the Act or the Rules made thereunder that the Additional Collector should have waited for some time to see as to whether the requisite quorum is there or not then in my opinion, it can safely be said that it was the duty of the Additional Collector to have waited for a reasonable time even after the time fixed for the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion to see as to whether the requisite quorum for the meeting was there or not. What would be the reasonable time in a given case will depend on the facts of that case. In the absence of any provision as aforesaid either under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder providing the time within which the quorum is to assemble it can be said that the quorum for the meeting should have assembled by 11.00 a.m. when the meeting was to commence and at any rate within a reasonable time thereafter. It cannot he said, as urged by Mr. Sharma by referring to the provisions of the Conduct of Busies Rules, that one hour would have been the reasonable time or half an hour would have been the reasonable time for the Additional Collector to wait for the quorum to assemble from the time fixed for the meeting i.e.. 11.00 a.m. A notice for consideration of the motion of no-confidence is given in advance and in the notice the time and place of the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion is intimated. Therefore, it is expected that all those who wanted to take part in the meeting in which the motion of no-confidence would be considered should be present by the time the meeting is to start or at least within a reasonable time thereafter. In the case, as already stated earlier, the Additional Collector waited for 15 minutes and it cannot be said that he did not wait for reasonable time from the time fixed for the meeting specifically conyened for consideration of no-confidence motion. In the case, as already stated earlier, the Additional Collector waited for 15 minutes and it cannot be said that he did not wait for reasonable time from the time fixed for the meeting specifically conyened for consideration of no-confidence motion. At any rate, in the absence of any rule or the provision of the Act, it cannot be said that, the Additional Collector has acted unreasonably or arbitrarily when he under sub-section (12) of Section 39 of the Act at 11.50 a.m, ordered that the meeting cannot be held because there was no requisite quorum for it. 6. Along with the petition affidavits of as many as 24 persons all members of the Panchayat Samiti were filed. They were filed in order to slow that the 24 members formed 23rd majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti out of 36 members. The contention of Mr. Sharma is that it goes to show that the Pradhan has lost the confidence of the majority of the members and as such he cannot be allowed to continue. Along with 22 petitioners the affidavit of lshwarlal Saini, M.L.A. belonging to Congress (I) party has been filed, wherein he has deposed that he also alongwith others at 11.20 a.m. on January 13, 1986 presented himself before the Additional Collector for consideration of motion of no confidence against Shiv Dayal Gupta. It has also been contended by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that Congress (I) party, party in power was interested that no-confidence motion against Shiv Dayal Gupta should not have carried through. The Congress (I) had issued a whip that the no-confidence motion should not De carried through. It was at the behest of the party in power that the Additional Collector at 11.15 a.m. recorded that because quorum was not complete, the meeting could not be held. Mr. Sharma during the course of arguments showed to me some whip, appeared to have been issued from the General Secretary of the Pradesh Congress Committee (1). It may be stated here that the petitioners themselves did not appear at 11.00 a.m, on January 13, 1986. So they were not present even till 11.15 a.m. and under the circumstances it is not proper to level malafides against the Additional Collector, who presided over the meeting. It may be stated here that the petitioners themselves did not appear at 11.00 a.m, on January 13, 1986. So they were not present even till 11.15 a.m. and under the circumstances it is not proper to level malafides against the Additional Collector, who presided over the meeting. The matter would have been different if the petitioners would have assembled at the time fixed for the meeting or before the Additional Collector took a decision that the meeting cannot be held, because there was no quorum for the meeting and then something would have been done by Additional Collector from which malafides could be inferred. A party can issue a whip to its members. It may also be stated that the application which was filed by 23 members of the Panchayat Samiti at 11.20 a.m, before the Additional Collector, when he had already taken a decision at 11.15 a.m., was not signed by Ishwarlal Saini, M.L.A. One of the signatories to the application dated January 13, 1986, which was filed at 11.20 a.m, has died and his name is Raghuvir Singh. Under the circumstances, I do not fined any merit in the allegation that the Additional Collector acted malafide in order to favour Shiv Dayal Gupta, non-petitioner No. 4, because he had support by Congress (I) party in power. 7. Consequently this writ petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******