HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) SINCE hearing the State in this matter is proper, Smt. Nimmy Swamy, learned government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1, 2 and 5. ( 2 ) SRI G. V. Guruvcgowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. N. Kamath, learned counsel for the Caveator and Smt. Nimmy swamy, learned Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 5 are heard in the matter. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that Hanchipura Mandal Panchayat of heggadadcvana Kote Taluk, Mysore District, consists of 24 members, of which two are nominated. Out of 24 members, 16 members belong to Janata dal Party and 8 members belong to Congress (I ). The petitioner also belongs to Janata Dal. Because of some misunderstanding between the petitioner and some of his colleagues who won on Janata Dal ticket, along with his political enemies, namely, members belong to Congress (I), gave a notice to the Assistant Commissioner as required under Section 47 (1) of the Act requesting him a meeting be convened so as to express no confidence against the petitioner to continue as Pradhana of the Mandal Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated 12-7-1990 convening a meeting at the request of the Secretary fixing the date as 6-8-1990 at 11 a. m. This is the notice which is now under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) As per Section 47 (3) of the Act, the notice to convene a meeting of no confidence could have been issued by the deputy Commissioner and not by the Assistant commissioner. Thus the notice at Annexure-A is without jurisdiction; (2) The request made by the members to convene a meeting of no confidence was not in the prescribed form, namely, form No. 1 or Form No. 2. Thus the notice at Annexure-A is without jurisdiction; (2) The request made by the members to convene a meeting of no confidence was not in the prescribed form, namely, form No. 1 or Form No. 2. Thus there was noncompliance of mandatory requirement of making a request in the prescribed form; (3) Respondents 6 to 15 who belong to the Janata Dal to which the petitioner belongs, in view of Section 3 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, are disqualified as the said respondents knowing fully well that the petitioner and they belong to one party, elected on the same party ticket, signed the notice to convene a meeting without obtaining prior permission of the President or Secretary of the Janata dal of either district or local unit. Thus, respondents 6 to 15 have violated the mandatory requirement of Section 3 (l) (b) of the said Act. The request that was earlier made by members of the mandal Panchayat was not a valid one as the request of respondents 6 to 15 could not have been considered by the Assistant Commissioner in view of having incurred disqualification. Lastly it was contended the notice at Anncxure-A though dated 12-7-1990 was actually served on the petitioner only on 27-7-1990. Thus no sufficient time was given to the petitioner to persuade the members particularly those belong to his party. On these grounds the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed quashing the notice at Anncxurc-A. ( 4 ) AS against these contentions Smt. Nimmy Swamy, learned Government Pleader and Sri C. N. Kamath, learned Counsel for respondent-9 argued that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner have any merit. Regarding the authority of issuing a notice by the assistant Commissioner, they argued, such a notice was well within his powers as required by section 47 (3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, taluk Panchayat Samilhis, Mandal Panchayals and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, as amended by act No. 5/1987, giving such powers to the assistant Commissioner in place of Deputy commissioner. Thus, according to them, the notice at Anncxurc-A issued by an authority who has authority and competence. Regarding the second contention that notice was not sent to the assistant Commissioner in the prescribed form, they submitted such a thing was not necessary. Thus, according to them, the notice at Anncxurc-A issued by an authority who has authority and competence. Regarding the second contention that notice was not sent to the assistant Commissioner in the prescribed form, they submitted such a thing was not necessary. Regarding third contention, they submitted the said section has no application to the issue to be decided. Regarding fourth contention, they submitted that when it is not in dispute that the notice was served on the petitioner on 20-7-1990 now it is not open for him to say that sufficient time was not given to him. After hearing both sides, 1 am of the view that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner deserve to be considered as having any merit. As submitted by respondents, the notice issued is a valid one as the same was issued by a competent authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner. As per rule 3 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and nyaya Panchayats (No-confidence motion against Pradhana and Upa-Pradhana) Rules, 1985, a notice to move no-confidence motion against Pradhana and Upa-Pradhana shall be given in Form-1. As per Rule 4 of the said Rules, a notice to convene a meeting under sub-section (3) of Section 47 shall be in Form-II. Form-I reads as follows: Form-I (See Rule 3) To The Deputy Commissioner, . District, . Sir, Sub: Motion of No-confidence against Pradhana/upa-Pradhana of Mandal Panchayat. We, the following members hereby give Notice . of . our . intention . to move that Sripradhana/upa-Pradhana of Mandal Panchayat shall be removed from the office of Pradhana/upa-Pradhana. Yours faithfully, Signature of members of Mandal Panchayat. 1. 2. 3. etc. ( 5 ) A reading of Rule 3 read with Form-I makes it clear that while giving a notice under section 47 (2), all that the members are required to do is they must intimate that they are moving such a resolution against the Pradhana or upapradhana. The substantive power is conferred under Section 47 (2) of the Act. Rule 3 and form-I to the Rules are only procedural. In case of infraction of provisions of Section 47 (2), no doubt, it defeats the very purpose as compliance of Section 47 (2) of the Act is mandatory. But non-compliance of Rule 3 or Form-I which is a mere procedure cannot be equated to the position of a mandatory requirement. Rule 3 and form-I to the Rules are only procedural. In case of infraction of provisions of Section 47 (2), no doubt, it defeats the very purpose as compliance of Section 47 (2) of the Act is mandatory. But non-compliance of Rule 3 or Form-I which is a mere procedure cannot be equated to the position of a mandatory requirement. Time and again it is said any defect or procedural irregularity will not vitiate the proceedings as it is mere directory and not mandatory. If once it is shown the requisite majority have given notice requesting the concerned authority to convene a meeting that is sufficient. In fact that is what the members of the Mandal Panchayat have done in the instant case. Hence, the contention of Sri Guruvegowda that compliance of Rule 3 in conformity with Form-I is a mandatory one cannot be accepted as according to me it is mere directory. Regarding the third contention that the Assistant Commissioner should not have counted the signatures of respondents 6 to 15 as in view of Section 3 (l) (b) of the Anti Defection act, they incurred disqualification the moment they subscribed their signatures to the signatures made by the petitioner's opponents, namely, members belonging to Congress (I) also cannot be accepted. If really the petitioner feels that the act of respondents 6 to 15 is a perfidious, it is for him to move the authority concerned who is empowered under the Act to take action against them for having violated the party discipline. The last contention, namely, sufficient time was not given to the petitioner in convening the meeting also there is no merit. It is not in dispute that notice dated 12-7-1990, according to the petitioner, was served on him on 20-7 1990, whereas the meeting as per the notice schedule to be held on 6-8-1990. Thus, sixteen days time was given to the petitioner to get himself prepared to face no-confidence motion. It is not in dispute that the object of the Act in serving a notice prior to the date of meeting is just to make him prepare to face the eventuality. That is what has been sincerely complied with by the authorities concerned in the instant case. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the meeting notice issued by the assistant Commissioner. That is what has been sincerely complied with by the authorities concerned in the instant case. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the meeting notice issued by the assistant Commissioner. ( 6 ) HENCE, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the appropriate authority or authorities if in any way he feels aggrieved by the decision that the members may take on 6-8-1990. All other contentions are kept open. There is no order as to costs. Smt. Nimmy Swamy, learned Government pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance within four weeks. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .