JUDGMENT - KANTHARIA H.H., J.:—The petitioner here challenges the legality of the show cause notice issued to him on May 22, 1987 regarding his removal from the office of the membership of the village panchayat of Usgaon-Ganjem. 2. The Usgaon-Ganjem village panchayat had nine elected members. The petitioner was one of them. On certain allegations made against him, he was served with a notice under Regulation 25 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats Regulations and Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Regulations") on May 22, 1987 to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the membership of the said village panchayat. In view of only the challenge to the validity of this notice which is a pure and simple question of law it is not necessary to go into the allegations and counter-allegations mentioned in the notice and a reply thereto. 3. Mr. Dias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a short submission that the notice under Regulation 25 of the said regulations had to be given to the panchayat and not to an individual member and since the notice here was given to the individual member of the panchayat (i.e. the petitioner) the notice is bad in law and cannot be sustained. Mr. Bhobe, learned Government Advocate, controverted this argument by submitting that since it was a particular member who was sought to be removed, a notice to him was necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it is worthwhile to incorporate here the relevant provision of Regulation 25 of the said Regulations which reads as under : "25. Removal from office.---(1) Such authority as may be specified by notification by the Lieutenant-Governor may, after giving due notice to the panchayat and after such inquiry as such authority thinks fit, remove from office any member or the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a panchayat who has been guilty of misconduct or neglect of duty or persistent remissness in the discharge of his duties; and the member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman so removed shall not be eligible for re-election during the remainder of the term of the panchayat. (2) ........... ............. .............. ................ (3) ........... ............. .............. ................ (4) ........... ............. .............. ................ (5) ........... ............. .............. (2) ........... ............. .............. ................ (3) ........... ............. .............. ................ (4) ........... ............. .............. ................ (5) ........... ............. .............. ................" A bare perusal of this provision of the said regulations makes it crystal clear that the authority here viz. the respondent (The Collector of Goa) was duty bound to give the notice in question to the panchayat and thereafter he was required to hold an enquiry into the allegations made allegations made against the petitioner in order to remove him from the office of the membership of the panchayat. We, therefore, find enough force in the argument of Mr. Dias that the notice under Regulation 25 was to be given to the panchayat and not to an individual member of the panchayat who was sought to be removed. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Bhobe that the member who was sought to be removed had to be heard to comply with the principles of natural justice and, therefore, he was individually required to be given a notice under Regulation 25. The principles of natural justice in a case like this would be followed while holding an enquiry as laid down in this regulation itself and it is at that time that the concerned member who was sought to be removed from his membership would be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in to the allegations made against him on account of which he was sought to be removed. 5. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned notice dated May 22, 1987 served on the petitioner by the Collector of Goa under Regulation 25 of the said Regulation is bad in law and has got to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Notice dated May 22, 1987 served on the petitioner by the Collector of Goa (Ex. 'D') is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute but with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----