CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS claim to be members of hirebendigeri Mandal Panchayat. They have callenged the constitutional validity of Section 47 of the Panchayat Samithis, mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as well as legality of the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening a meeting to discuss the 'no confidence Motion' moved against the pradhan of the said Mandal Panchayat. ( 2 ) THE main ground of attack to the constitutional validity of Article 14 of the constitution and also the office of Pradhan being a property, deprivation of that property without the authority of law, is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THESE contentions are to be stated only to be rejected in limine. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel, expanding the argument founded on violation of article 14, submitted that Pradhan was not given an opportunity of being heard in regard to the charges made against him which formed the basis of the 'no confidence Motion' and therefore, violative of Rules of natural justice. Moving no Confidence Motion' is a right conferred on the Members of the Mandal panchayat. If Shey have no confidence in the Pradhan or the Upa Pradhan they have a right to move such a No Confidence Motion. Whatever be the reason for their lack of confidence in the Pradhan and or the Upa Pradhan, Pradhan is permitted to participate in such a meeting though he is not permitted to preside over that meeting That meeting shall be presided over by the Assistant Commissioner to whom the No Confidence motion is tendered and upon whom is imposed the duty to call and convene a meeting within the time and manner specified and put the motion to discussion and vote. ( 5 ) PRADHAN, like any one else, has the notice of the meeting. He is free to canvass among members for support in his own favour during the meeting or before the meeting, but before the motion is put to vote. Therefore, assuming that he has civil consequences visited upon him (which assumption is really unwarranted), he has sufficient opportunity and therefore, there is no denial of an opportunity and as such there is no violation of the rules of natural justice. Therefore, assuming that he has civil consequences visited upon him (which assumption is really unwarranted), he has sufficient opportunity and therefore, there is no denial of an opportunity and as such there is no violation of the rules of natural justice. The very concept of democracy is founded on the members of an elected body having confidence in their leader or lacking it. if a particular procedure is prescribed for expressing confidence or lack of it, nothing under article 14 is attracted nor is it violative of equal protection of laws as all Pradhans are treated the same way. it does not apply to any particular Pradhan or Mandal. Therefore, Section 47 is not violative of article 14. ( 6 ) OFFICE of the Pradhan by no strech of imagination can be considered the personal property of Pradhan who holds it. it is a public office. Therefore, question of attracting Article 300-A of the Constitution does not arise. ( 7 ) IN an earlier petition by the same mandal Panchayat, this Court has explained the procedure to be followed and dismissed that Petition. For the very same reason the notice issued now does not suffer from any legal infitmity. Petition is misconceived. It is rejected. --- *** --- .