JUDGMENT 1. - The above two writ petition may be disposed of conveniently by a common order.1. A) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2940/1989This case illustrates a typical example of facts applied by non- petitioner No. 3 Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu, to defeat the various motions of no-confidence against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Beri, who had lost the confidence of 11(eleven) members of the Panchayat out of 14 (fourteen) total members including the Sarpanch himself.The Gram Panchayat Beri is in Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh (District Jhunjhunu) and the same has been established under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953( in short, to be referred 'the Act'). 2. The eleven petitioners are elected/co-opted panchas of the aforesaid Panchayat and they had moved the first motion of no- confidence against the Sarpanch on April 28, 1989. This motion was rejected by the non-petitioner No.3 vide his communication dated May 12,1989 (Annex.2) on the ground that no date was mentioned on the notice or motion of no-confidence and that the signature of petitioner No.1 Mahaveer Singh was not attested by a Gazetted Officer or by any employee of the Panchayat Samiti.Then the second motion of no-confidence was moved on May 15,1989 by 10 panchas, except petitioner No.3 Raju Sharma, who could not put his signature on the motion as he was out of station. This motion of no-confidence was also attested by one Shri Hari Ram, Animal Husbandary Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh, who was also the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh, who was also the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti. This motion was also rejected on 5-6-1989 vide Annex.-5 on the ground that Shri Hari Ram had submitted an application in the office of Chief Executive Officer to the effect that he had put his signatures on the notice as well as on the motion of no-confidence on 12-5-1989 and not on May 15,1989.After rejection of the second motion of no-confidence, the non- petitioner No. 3 Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta declared the seats of six panchas vacant vide his order dated 9-6-1989 (who were also signatories on the aforesaid motions of no confidence). The said order was challenged by the panchas in a writ petition before this court, which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2347/1989. Ram Gopal Cheeta declared the seats of six panchas vacant vide his order dated 9-6-1989 (who were also signatories on the aforesaid motions of no confidence). The said order was challenged by the panchas in a writ petition before this court, which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2347/1989. After hearing the counsel for the Sarpanch, this court had stayed the operation of the above order on 22-6-1989.Then again a fresh motion of no-confidence was moved on June 24, 1989 by all the eleven petitioners but the same was not accepted by the non-petitioner No.3 on the ground that it was signed by the six panchas also whose seats were declared vacant by his order dated 9-6-1989, inspite of the fact that the operation of the said order was stayed by this court on 22-(-1989. Then, the petitioner Mahaveer Singh approached to the Collector, Jhunjhunu but he too refused to entertain the motion of no-confidence. Then, the notice of motion pf no-confidence was sent to non- petitioner No.3 as well as the Collector, Jhunjhunu through registered post and they were received by them. The Collector, Jhunjhunu sent the notice of motion of no-confidence to the Chief Executive Officer but non-petitioner No. 3 Shri Ram Copal Cheeta did not entertain the said notice on the ground that the same was received through the Collector. The communication in this connection is dated 5/6th July, 1989 (Annex-14). There- after, the petitioner Mahaveer Singh intimated to the non-petitioner No. 3 vide his letter dated July 12, 1989 stating therein that the motion of no-confidence was also sent to him by registered post and the same was received by him on June 28, 1989, as such, he should convens a meeting to discuss the motion of no-confidence. Though, this letter was sent through registered post but the same was not responded by non-petitioner No. 3. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire action of the non-petitioner No. 3, Shri Ram Gopal Cheeta was malafide and contrary to the provisions of the Act and Panachayat Rules. According to him, the non-petitioner No.3 deliberately did not convene the meeting on the notice of the motion of no-confidence in order to help the Sarpanch hand as such, he misused the powers of his authority. According to him, the non-petitioner No.3 deliberately did not convene the meeting on the notice of the motion of no-confidence in order to help the Sarpanch hand as such, he misused the powers of his authority. According to learned counsel, the first two motions of no-confidence were not entertained for one reason or the other to delay the consideration, so that the seats of some of the panchas may be declared vacant in the meantime.The learned counsel further argued that on June 9,1989 the seats of six panchas, who were also the signatories on the motion of no-confidence, were declared vacant, with the result the total strength of the panchas in the Panchayat was reduced from 14 to 8 and the total number of movers of no-confidence motion remained only five. The learned counsel submitted that five panchas were unable to carry-out the motion of no-confidence as a motion of no-confidence could be carried-out by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total members of Panchayat.The learned counsel also argued that after the operation of the order dated 9-6-1989 was stayed by this court, the panchas again gave a notice of the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch on June 24,1989, but the same was not entertained and then they had to send the said notice by registered post to the Collector as well as to non-petitioner No. 3. Inspite of the fact that the Collector, Jhunjhunu forwarded the said notice of the motion of no-confidence to non-petitioner No. 3. he declined to convene the meeting and rejected the same on frivolous ground that it was not received by him directly as the same was received through the Collector though, a similar notice was also sent to him through registered post separately and the same was received by him. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners supported the action of the non-petitioner.No.3 and submitted that he rightly rejected the various notices on the grounds given by him. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the entire material on record. The original file has also been produced before me by Dy. Govt. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the entire material on record. The original file has also been produced before me by Dy. Govt. Advocate and I have perused the same minutely.After considering the entire material and the facts of the case, I am convinced that the non-petitioner No. 3 Sh. Ram Copal Cheeta not only acted illegally but also acted deliberately in rejecting the various notices of the motion of no-confidence against the Sarapanch. I am also convinced that it was done by him in order to help the Sarpanch, who did not enjoy the majority in the Panchayat. 6. The total strength of the Panchayat Beri is 14, including the Sarpanch. Out of 14 panchas, 11 members had moved the motion of no-confidence and if that motion of no-confidence had been put for discussion and voting; then there was no doubt in getting it carried-out. It is also note-worthy that the matter for declaring the seats of some panchas vacant on the ground of their not attending five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat was also pending before non-petitioner No. 3. The first two notices of motion of no-confidence were rejected on one or the other ground to delay the consideration on the same. Thereafter, the seats of 6 panchas were declared vacant by the no-petitioner No.3 vide his order dated 9-6-89. Inspite of the fact that the operation of the said order was stayed by a Division Bench of this court. The non-petitioner No-3 did not convene the meeting on the third notice of motion of no-confidence, which was subsequently submitted before him, firstly in-person and then by registered post when the same was refused to be accepted by him. 7. Section 19 of the Act provides for the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. This section reads as under: "Motion of no-confidence:-(1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by (any elected or coopted Panch) after giving such notice, as may be prescribed against the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. 7. Section 19 of the Act provides for the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. This section reads as under: "Motion of no-confidence:-(1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by (any elected or coopted Panch) after giving such notice, as may be prescribed against the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. (2) If the motion against the Sarpanch is carried by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of (members of the Panchayat including the Sarpanch but excluding the associate Panchas) or if the motion against the Up-sarpanch is carried by a majority of the total number of (members of the Panchayat including the Sarpanch but excluding the associate Panchas), the Sarpanch or the up-sarpanch as the case may be shall, within 3 days of the passing of the motion, resign his office by submitting his resignation to the (Officer-in-charge of Panchayats) and thereupon his office shall be deemed to be vacant. (3) If the Sarpanch or the Upsarpanch, as the case may be, against whom the motion of no-confidence has been carried, does not resign his office within the period prescribed in sub-section(2), he shall be removed from his office by the (Officer- in-charge of Panchayats). (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or rules made there-under, a Sarpanch or Upsarpanch shall not preside at a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussed against him but he shall have a right to speak and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of the Panchayat(including a right to vote)." Thus, section 19 provides a statutory right in the elected/co-opted panchas to move a motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch or Upsarpanch who did not enjoy their confidence. In a democratic set-up this is a powerful weapon in the hands of the opponents to dislodge a Sarpanch or Upsarpanch.It is also relevant to refer section 21 of the Act which deals with the procedure for the conduct of Panchayat business. In a democratic set-up this is a powerful weapon in the hands of the opponents to dislodge a Sarpanch or Upsarpanch.It is also relevant to refer section 21 of the Act which deals with the procedure for the conduct of Panchayat business. Sub-section (2) provides that the Sarpanch shall hold a meeting of the Panchayat for the disposal of its business as often as may be necessary and atleast once a fortnight at some place within the Panchayat Circle.Then, sub-section (3) of Section-21 gives the right to 1 /3rd of the Panchas to make a requisition in writing to the Sarpanch for calling a special meeting of the Panchayat and if such requisition is given then the Sarpanch is bound to call a special meeting within 3 days of such requisition.Sub-section (4) provides the quorum for a meeting of the Panchayat which is ⅓rd of the whole number of panchas, including the Sarpanch.Sub-section(5) and (8) provide as under : "Sub-section(5) "The meeting of the Panchayat shall ordinarily be open to the public, but any such meeting may be held in camera on a motion to that effect being carried by majority of the Panchas present and voting." Sub-section (8)-"All matters coming before the meeting of a Panchayat shall be decided by a majority of the Panchas present and voting:- Provided that, in cases of equality of votes,the person presiding at such meeting shall have a second and casting vote: Provided further that a majority of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Panchas including the Sarpanch of a Panchayat shall be necessary for its decisions in relation to the following matters namely: (i) Construction of wells, tanks and ponds for the supply of water for drinking, bathing and washing purposes; (ii) Construction of public streets, (iii) Construction of public latrines, (iv) Construction of new buildings." Thus, it is clear that for a smooth functioning of the Panchayat, it is necessary that the Sarpanch must have the confidence of majority of Panchas. If a Sarpanch has confidence of only 3 members out of total strength of 14, then,no business can be transacted by him as all matters coming before the meeting of a Panchayat are decided atleast by a majority of the Panchas present and voting.It is note worthy that the office of a Sarpanch is an elected office and it is not made easy to carry-out a motion of no confidence against him as it requires a majority of not less than 3/4th of the members of the Panchayat, including the Sarpanch, as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act.In the instant case, the Sarpanch had lost the confidence of 11 members out of 14 and as such, he was unable to protect his seat as a motion of no-confidence, if moved against him, could be easily carried-out against him. 8. In this background, I have to examine the action of the non- petitioner No.3 qua each of the notices of the motion of no-confidence moved by the petitioners. 9. The first motion of no-confidence was submitted by the eleven petitioners on April 28,1989 to non-petitioner No.3 Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu, who was the competent authority to receive such notice and to convene a meeting for consideration of the same.I have seen the original notice which is available in the file which has been placed before me for perusal by the Dy.Government Advocate.From a bare perusal of the said notice of motion of no- confidence, it is clear that it has been moved by the eleven petitioners and they have put their signatures or thumb impression on the same. The petitioner Mahaveer Singh is the proposer of the motion while the other ten Panchas have supported the said motion. On the left side attestation has been made by Shri Hari Ram.This notice of no-confidence was submitted by Sh. Mahaveer Singh, petitioner No.1, to non-petitioner No. 3 alongwith a covering application with a request to convene the meeting to discuss the said motion. This motion of no-confidence was received by non-petitioner No.3 on April 28,1989, but the same has been rejected by him vide his communication No. 1534- 45/P/89 dated 12th May, 1989 on two grounds. Mahaveer Singh, petitioner No.1, to non-petitioner No. 3 alongwith a covering application with a request to convene the meeting to discuss the said motion. This motion of no-confidence was received by non-petitioner No.3 on April 28,1989, but the same has been rejected by him vide his communication No. 1534- 45/P/89 dated 12th May, 1989 on two grounds. Firstly, that the notice of no-confidence and the covering application did not bear any date, and secondly, that the signature of Mahaveer Singh petitioner on the motion of no-confidence is not attested by any Gazetted Officer or by any employee of the Panchayat Samiti.In my view, the said notice of the motion of no-confidence was perfectly in order and it was wrongly rejected by the non- petitioner No.3.Rule 14 to 19 in Chapter-III of Rajasthan Panchayat(General) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'as Panchayat Rules') provide the procedure of no-confidence in Sarpanch or Upsarpanch. Sub- rule (2) of Rule 14 reads as under: "The notice shall set-out the proposed motion in extenso and shall be signed by the Panch proposing to move it and such signatures shall be attested by an official of the State Government or of a Panchayat Samiti." Rule 15 provides for calling of a meeting for consideration of motion on a date not later than 30 days from the date on which the notice was delivered.Rule 16 provides that in case the motion has been carried-out in the meeting, so convened under Rule 15 or 15a, then the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch, as the case may be, has to submit his resignation within 3 days to the Officer-in-charge of the Panchayat or to any officer or Authority to whom the powers of the Officer-in charge of Panchayat under Section 19 may have been delegated by the State Government by a notification under Section 70.Then Rule 18 provides that on submission of the resignation, the officer-in-charge of the Panchayat or other authority referred to in clause(xiv) of Rule 16, shall accept such resignation and declare his office to have become vacant. If no such resignation is received, then he shall call upon the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch, as the case may be, to submit the same within a week and send directions to the Panchayat office to treat him as having been suspended from the office. If no such resignation is received, then he shall call upon the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch, as the case may be, to submit the same within a week and send directions to the Panchayat office to treat him as having been suspended from the office. Even sub-rule (3) provides the removal of the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch from the office.Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 makes it clear that the only requirement for a valid notice of the motion of no-confidence is to set-out in it the proposed motion in extenso and to be signed by the Panchas proposing to move it and such signatures to be attested by an official of the State Government or of a Panchayat Samiti. There is no dispute that Sh. Hari Ram was Animal Husbandry and Extension Officer in Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh and was also working as Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti at the relevant time and as such, he was competent to attest the signatures of the Panchas who were the movers of the motion of no-confidence.The above Rule does not require any date to be given on such notice as it is not relevant. It is the date when such notice of motion of no-confidence is received by the competent authority which is relevant. This date is not in dispute here as the notice was received by non-petitioner No. 3 on April 28,1989.The date of the receipt of the notice is relevant because the concerned officer/authority has to convene a meeting within 30 days from the receipt of such notice. Therefore, the view of non-petitioner No. 3 is wholly erroneous in law that the notice of -the motion of no-confidence moved by the petitioners was not valid as it did not contain any date on it.The second ground given for rejection of this notice by non- petitioner No. 3 is also erroneous as being factually incorrect. 1 have seen the original motion of no-confidence which reads as under: " uksfVl vfo'okl izLrko fo:) ljiap Jh txnh'k flag xzke iapk;r csjh uksfVl ge xzke iapk;r csjh ds lnL; x.k xzke iapk;r ds orZeku ljiap Jh txnh'k flag ds izfr viuk vfo'okl O;Dr djrs gSaA D;ksafd buds }kjk voS/kkfud rkSj ij xzke iapk;r esa dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gSA " The notice was moved by the eleven members of the Panchayat who had put their signatures or thumb impressions. It has been attested by Shri Hari Ram, Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti Surajgarh. Therefore, it was factually incorrect on the part of non-petitioner No. 3 when he observed that the signature of Mahaveer Singh was not attested by any Gazetted Officer or any employee of Panchayat Samiti.Therefore, both the grounds for rejecting the notice of motion of no-confidence are not sustainable in the eyes of law and non- petitioner No3 acted illegally in rejecting the said notice and in not convening the meeting of the Panchyat for consideration of the said motion of no-confidence. 10. Now I may examine the second notice of motion of no- confidence. The second notice against the Sarpanch is dated May 15, 1989 and the date has been given on the top of the motion expressing no confidence in the Sarpanch. It was signed by 10(ten) Panchas who are the petitioners. It has been attested by the- same Sh. Hari Ram. This motion was perfectly in order. However, after the signature of Sh. Hari Ram, there is over- writing on the date. It may be stated that the attestation by Sh. Hari Ram has been made at two places i.e. on the notice, as well as, on the motion of no-confidence and the date has been given as 15-5-1989 after the signature of Hari Ram. It is no doubt true that below the signatures of Hari Ram there is a over-writing in the date. This possibility cannot be ruled out that this over- writing in the date has been subsequently made in order to defeat the motion and to create a ground for not convening the meeting to discuss the motion on the notice which was otherwise in order.I have carefully seen the over-writing in the date and I am of the view that this possibility cannot be ruled out that this mischief might have been committed in order to create a ground to reject the motion out-rightly without convening any meeting to discuss the same. Who has committed this mischief . is a matter of investigation but the matter is a serious one and the non- petitioner No. 3 cannot be absolved from his liability on his mere saying that this over-writing has been subsequently made from 12-5-89 to 15-5-89 . Who has committed this mischief . is a matter of investigation but the matter is a serious one and the non- petitioner No. 3 cannot be absolved from his liability on his mere saying that this over-writing has been subsequently made from 12-5-89 to 15-5-89 . In this connection, it may be mentioned that the date has been given at two places also, firstly on the top of the notice and secondly on the top of the motion detailed out extensively. There is no over-writing on these dates which have been mentioned as May 15,1989. There is no dispute that the second motion was submitted to non-petitioner No. 3 on May 15,1989. No objection was raised at the time of receiving the notice that there was over-writing in the date below the signatures of Hari Ram. Then, there was hardly any occasion for Shri Hari Ram to have written to non-petitioner No. 3 on 19-5-1989 mentioning therein that he had put his signatures on May 12,1989 and that if the date has been subsequently made as May 15, 1989, the same has been made by the Panchas. I have no doubt that this letter has been procured by non- petitioner No.3 in order to defeat the notice of motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch which was validly moved by ten(10) panchas expressing their no- confidence in him. It appears that the non-petitioner No. 3 did not want to convene the meeting for one reason or the other, as if the meeting had been convened to discuss the motion then there was no difficulty in its being carried-out. This clearly shows the manipulation on the part of non-petitioner No. 3 to help the Sarpanch Jagdish Singh from being ousted from his office.It may be also stated here that even the motion of no-confidence was at- tested by Sh. Hari Ram on 12-5-1989 and submitted to non- petitioner No.3 on 15-5-198 then too, it was hardly having any relevance as on this ground the notice of the motion of no- confidence could not have been rejected.It is also relevant to mention here that after the receipt of the communication from non-petitioner No.3 dated 19-5-1989, the petitioner had submitted their explanation on May 26,1989 that the motion was signed by all the ten movers and it was attested by Sh. Hari Ram on 15-5-89 and he himself put the date after his signatures. Hari Ram on 15-5-89 and he himself put the date after his signatures. This explanation was received by non-petitioner No.3 on 26-5-1989. Then there is nothing on the record to show that Sh. Hari Ram was asked to submit any affidavit though one affidavit is on the record. The said affidavit appears to have been got typed by somebody else as the father's name of Hari Ram has been subsequently written by hand. There is nothing on the record as to how the affidavit of Hari Ram was received by non- petitioner No.3. The entire facts speak loudly against the actions of non-petitioner No. 3. I am satisfied that the over-writing in the dates after the signatures of Shri Hari Ram may be a mischief at the instance of non-petitioner No. 3 Shri Ram Copal Cheeta in order to create a ground to defeat this motion of no- confidence also for not convening a meeting of the Panchayat to consider it. 11. Now I may deal with the third motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch.After the communication dated 5-6-89 (Annex. 5) rejecting the second notice, the non-petitioner No. 3 declared the seats of six panchas who were also movers of the motion of no-confidence, vacant vide his order dated June 9,1989(Annex.6). The said order was challenged by the affected Panchas in writ petition which was registered as D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2347 of 1989. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench of this court stayed the operation of the order dated 9-6-1989 vide order dated June 22,1989 (Annex.7)After this stay order, the eleven petitioners again submitted a fresh notice of the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch on June 24, 1989. When it was not accepted by non-petitioner No. 3, it was sent by registered post both to the Collector, as well as, the non-petitioner No.3. The postal receipt is on record as Annex.11. The said notices were received by the Collector, Jhunjhunu as well as by the non-petitioner No-3 on June 28, 1989 and acknowledgement receipt are annex. 12 and 13 on the record.In the reply, the non-petitioner No. 3 has not specifically denied that he did not received the said notice of motion of no-confidence by registered post on June 28, 1989. The acknowledgement receipt (Annex.12) has also not been denied. 12 and 13 on the record.In the reply, the non-petitioner No. 3 has not specifically denied that he did not received the said notice of motion of no-confidence by registered post on June 28, 1989. The acknowledgement receipt (Annex.12) has also not been denied. However the said notice was rejected on July 5,1989 on the ground that the same was received by him through the Collector and it was not sent to him directly.On receipt of this order, the petitioners wrote a letter to the non-petitioner No.3 on July 12, 1989 which was sent by registered post, in which it was stated that a separate notice of motion of no-confidence was also sent to him by registered post which was received by him on June 28, 1989. However, no reply was given by non-petitioner No. 3 in this connection. In the reply filed by non- petitioner No. 3 no specific denial has been made to these averments which have been made by the petitioners in para No. 14 of the writ petition.From the above facts, I am satisfied that a separate notice of the motion of no-confidence was also sent to non-petitioner No. 3 by registered post and the same was received by him on June 28,1989. Therefore, it was not proper on his part in not convening the meeting on the said notice. 12. This point may be judged from another angle also. If a notice is ad- dressed to the non-petitioner No. 3 and the same is sent to the Collector on the ground that non-petitioner No. 3 was not accepting the same and Collector for- warded the same to non- petitioner No.3, it cannot be said that the said notice was not proper simply because it was received by the concerned authority through the Collector.The requirement of the law is that the authorised officer should receive the notice of motion of no-confidence and the motion should be in proper form and duly attested as required under Rule 14(2).If the motion was in accordance to Rule 14(2) of the Rules, then the concerned authority/officer is bound to convene the meeting within the specified period and it is hardly relevant whether the said notice is received by a registered post or by a messenger or through some other agency. Rule 14 in this connection is quite clear which requires that a motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch or Upsarpanch can be delivered or caused to be delivered by any Panch of a Panchayat. Therefore, it is not necessary that the movers of the motion of no-confidence should themselves appear before the concerned authority/officer to deliver the same. Such notice can be caused to be delivered through any other agency also, which may be through a messenger, registered post or through another officer or authority. What is necessary is that the notice of such motion should be received by the concerned officer/authority and it should be in order as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. The mode of sending the motion is not relevant. Hence, the non-petitioner No. 3 acted illegally in rejecting this motion of no-confidence also on the ground that the same was received through the Collector. 13. From the sequence of the events which I have narrated above, I am fully convinced that the entire action of non-petitioner No-3 appears to be malafide. The first two motions of no- confidence were rejected without calling the meeting of the Panchayat to consider the same on one or the other ground to delay the matter so that the other matter pending before non- petitioner No.3 may be decided and seats of some of the Panchas may be declared vacant to reduce their number to the extent that the motion of no-confidence may not be carried-out by a required majority.After rejection of second notice of motion of no-confidence on 5-6-89 the seats of six petitioners were declared vacant on June 9, 1989, with the result that the total strength of the Panchas from 14 was reduced to 8 and the total strength of the movers of no-confidence motion was reduced from 11 to 5. The remaining five panchas could not have carried-out the motion of no-confidence as they did not have the majority of 3/4th of the total number of Panchas. The total number of the members of the Panchayat including the Sarpanch having become eight, it required at least six panchas/members in support of the motion of no-confidence to carry-it out. The remaining five panchas could not have carried-out the motion of no-confidence as they did not have the majority of 3/4th of the total number of Panchas. The total number of the members of the Panchayat including the Sarpanch having become eight, it required at least six panchas/members in support of the motion of no-confidence to carry-it out. Thus, by this device of not calling the meeting of the Panchayat to consider the motion of no-confidence the non-petitioner No.3 succeeded in protecting the seat of the Sarpanch.Subsequently, when a stay was granted by this court on 22-6-1989 and a fresh motion of no-confidence was moved, the non-petitioner No. 3 firstly did not accept when it was presented to him personally. Then the notice of no-confidence was sent by registered post. A similar motion was sent to the Collector, Jhunjhunu with a complaint that it was not being accepted by non-petitioner No.3. The Collector then forwarded the same to non-petitioner No.3. The non- petitioner No.3, without considering the notice of motion of no-confidence which was sent to him by registered post and which was received by him on June 28,1989, declined to convene the meeting vide his order dated 5-7-89 (Annex.14) holding that the motion of no-confidence was received through the Collector and as such, it was not proper.All these clearly show the malafide action of non-petitioner No.3 Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta and no further comments are necessary.I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the order dated ⅚th July, 1989(Annex.14) of Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Pariahad, Jhunjhunu and direct the non-petitioner No. 2 to call a meeting of the members of Gram Panchayat Beri for consideration of motion of no- confidence against the Sarpanch Jagdish Singh dated June 24, 1989 within 30 days from today. The non-petitioner No. 3 shall pay the cost of this writ petition to the petitioners which is quantified as Rs. 2000/-.The copy of this judgment be sent to the Collector, Jhunjhunu for necessary action against Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu after holding an enquiry, if necessary.B) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2347/1989I have decided S.B. Civil Writ No. 2940/89, as such, I need not narrate the facts in details. In short, petitioner No.1 to 4 are elected Panchas of Gram Panchayat Beri, Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh (Distt. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu after holding an enquiry, if necessary.B) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2347/1989I have decided S.B. Civil Writ No. 2940/89, as such, I need not narrate the facts in details. In short, petitioner No.1 to 4 are elected Panchas of Gram Panchayat Beri, Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh (Distt. Jhunjhunu) and the petitioner No. 5 and 6 are the co-opted members of the said Panchayat.In the present writ petition , the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction: a) to quash and set aside the order and decision dated 9-6-89 of the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu; b) to quash and set aside the orders dated 12-5-89 and 5-6-89 of the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu; c) to direct the respondent Chief Executive Officer to immediately call for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat Beri for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Beri Shri Jagdish Singh. The total strength of the members, including the Sarpanch, in the aforesaid Panchayat is 14 (fourteen). Out of 14(fourteen) members, 11 (eleven) members were not supporting the Sarpanch Jagdish Singh and they had moved motions of no-confidence against him from time to time, the details about the same have already been given earlier.The complaint of the petitioners is that the Sarpanch was interested to remove some of the Panchas who were opposed to him and in order to achieve this object, he has applied this device showing their absence in five consecutive meetings.In the present petition the petitioners have made a number of grievances against the Sarpanch with regard to the alleged meetings in which their absence has been shown. They have also challenged the order/decision dated 9-6-89 of Chief Executive Officer whereby their seats have been declared as vacant on the various grounds, including malafide on the part of non-petitioner No.3 Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu.In writ petition No. 2940/89 1 have examined the question of malafides on the part of Sh. Cheeta and I have held that his entire action was malafide and motivated in order to help the Sarpanch Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu.In writ petition No. 2940/89 1 have examined the question of malafides on the part of Sh. Cheeta and I have held that his entire action was malafide and motivated in order to help the Sarpanch Sh. Jagdish Singh so that he may retain his seat inspite of the fact that he did not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members of the Panchayat.As 'the same person has passed the order dated June 9, 1989 by which the seats of the petitioners have been declared vacant, I am of the view that this order also deserves to be set aside and the matter requires re-consideration by an independent person in an impartial manner.As I am remanding the case for re-consideration, as such I need not examine as to whether the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu was competent or not to hold an enquiry under rule 12 of the Rules, as now there is no dispute before me that after passing the said order, the aforesaid officer has been invested with such powers.The object of the Rule 12 is to provide an independent machinery to scrutinise independently and impartially as to whether a Panch or Panchas of a Panchayat has/have remained absent in five consecutive meetings for his/their seat becoming vacant under section 17(2) of the Act. A sarpanch is always interested to see that his adversaries are removed from the membership of the Panchayat. This interest is inherent. In a given case like the present one where the Sarpanch enjoys the confidence of only three members, including himself, out of the fourteen members of the Panchayat, this interest becomes greater in order to save his office. In the Panchayat Act, the Panchas/members of the Panchayat have been given a statutory right to remove a Sarpanch by passing a motion of no-confidence against him with a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total members of the Panchayat. Inspite of the fact that the office of the Sarpanch is an elective office, this right has been given to the members for the obvious reason that if the Sarpanch is in such a hopeless minority then he cannot function at all.Under section 21 of the Act, the Panchayat decides all the matters by a majority of the members present and voting. Therefore, the provision to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch is a salutary one which is necessary for the functioning of a democratic institution. It is also equally important that the elected Panchas should be active participants in the transaction of the business of the Panchayat which is conducted in the various meetings of the Panchayat. The Panchayat is a grass root institution with various duties to be performed, as specified in the III Schedule covering various spheres including sanitation and health, educational and cultural, self-defence and Panchayat Circle defence, administration, agriculture and preservation of forests, breeding and protecting cattle, village industries etc. and it is expected from the Panchas to take active participants in the meetings of the Panchayat.It is noteworthy that as per section 21 of the Act, it is necessary for the Sarpanch to hold a meeting of the Panchayat atleast once a fortnight. There is also a provision for a special meeting to be convened on a requisition by the members of the Panchayat. If a member of the Panchayat does not participate in five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat, it may be inferred that he is not interested to discharge his obligation. Therefore, a provision under section 17(2) of the Act has been made to the effect that if any Panch, Sarpanch or Upsarpanch during the term of his office absents himself from five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without giving information in writing to the Panchayat he shall cease to be such Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch and his seat shall become vacant. The importance of this provision cannot be denied in the aforesaid background.However, a balance has to be struck between the two extremes. Those panchas/members who do not participate in the meetings of the Panchayat deliberately and willingly, should not be allowed to continue to hold their office as such, on the one hand; similarly a Sarpanch should not be allowed to manipulate the absence of a Panch/member in five consecutive meetings in order to debar him from remaining a panch/member of the Panchayat. For this purpose, Rule 12 of the Rules assumes importance which provides a scrutiny by an independent machinery as to whether a member of the Panchayat had remained absent on five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat willingly or deliberately without giving any information inspite of due notice of the meetings. For this purpose, Rule 12 of the Rules assumes importance which provides a scrutiny by an independent machinery as to whether a member of the Panchayat had remained absent on five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat willingly or deliberately without giving any information inspite of due notice of the meetings. If it is found that the independent authority did not act impartially and independently then his decision under sub-rule (5) of rule 12 stands vitiated. I have already gone in details about the actions of Sit. Ram Copal Cheeta and have held that his various orders were passed malafidely in order to help the Sarpanch, as such, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order/decision dated June 9,1989 by which the seats of the petitioners have been declared vacant.So far the other relief claimed by the petitioners with regard to the rejection of the notice of the motion of no-confidence, I have already passed necessary orders.Consequently, this petition is allowed with costs. The order dated June 9,1989 (Annex.29) passed by Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu is set-aside and the case is remanded to Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu for deciding the matter afresh. In case Sh. Ram Gopal Cheeta is holding the said post then the petitioners may approach to the State Government for authorising some other person to decide the matter in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules.Petition allowed. *******