D.L. MEHTA, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Motion of no-confidence was moved against the present petitioner which was carried out in the meeting held on 5-5-1988. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the meeting held on 5-8-88 on number of grounds. However, taking note of the decision of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Raj (1) he has argued only on the point that the motion of no-confidence was not declared for consideration by the Presiding Officer and there is a clear violation of R. 15 Clause (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. 2. Mr Sharma with all his vehemence at his command submitted that it is the requirement of the democratic process that the motion of no-confidence should be discussed and there should be opportunity for discussion. He has invited our attention to para No. 8 of the reply to the writ petition. In this para No 8 it is mentioned that the Presiding Officer has not declared that the motion is not open for discussion. In reply to para No. 8 of the writ petition, the respondents have submitted that the Tehsildar has declared that the motion open for discussion. It was further submitted that the Presiding Officer, Tehsildar asked all the panchas, present at the time of meeting that whether they have to say anything in respect of the motion for no confidence and in response to that the eight panchas and answering non-petitioner Prahlad Singh unanimously supported the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and thereafter all the nine panchas including the answering non-petitioner signed the proceedings. 3. This Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Vs. Municipal Board, Makrana reported in (2) held that the object of these provisions is to ensure that the vote of non-confidence is passed for really valid reasons and not capriciously and are aimed at giving chairman material ground on which the vote of non-confidence has been proposed so as to unable him to make a proper representation. May it be so in Annexure 2 itself it has been mentioned that the motion of no-confidence was read over by the Presiding Officer. Apart from that notice of motion of no-confidence was issued a week before. We should take the practical approach in the matter of political issues and should see that the democracy really survives. May it be so in Annexure 2 itself it has been mentioned that the motion of no-confidence was read over by the Presiding Officer. Apart from that notice of motion of no-confidence was issued a week before. We should take the practical approach in the matter of political issues and should see that the democracy really survives. It is the duty of the citizens including the person who has been elected on the post to see that he is really having the confidence of the majority. Particularly when nine panchas are voting against the Sarpanch and there is a provision that the motion of no-confidence will be carried out with a majority of 3/4 total panchas. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the persons who have voted were ignorant of the fact. 4. Rule 15 Clause (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat. Rules, 1961 reads as under: — "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 open for discussion". 5. It is obligatory on the Presiding Officer to read the motion for no confidence for consideration. Every voter who has attended the meeting can object before the Presiding Officer and he may ask for discussion and if the presiding officer declines to give him an opportunity there may be a case of breach in some respects. However, the petitioner has not come with the case that any of the person who was present in the meeting has demanded that he want to express his opinion about the motion of no-confidence. 6. We are of the view that discussion is not mandatory but it is directory in nature and we are in disagreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge in the case of Abdul Rehman (supra). Apart from that the law of equity, the law of justice, the law of democracy should prevail over the technicalities and the person who has lost the confidence of 3/4th Panchas, cannot claim any right of relief. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected summarily.