JUDGMENT - Patil G.D., J.:—In both these petitions since on almost identical facts common question of law arises, both the petitions were heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 605 of 1994 rule and interim relief was granted to the petitioner on 11-3-1994. The Caveator-intervener one Shri Tejankar, represented by Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned Counsel for the intervener, however, filed civil application for vacating the stay and when the stay application came up for hearing the main petition itself was heard on merits by consent of parties. 3. In Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1994 with consent of the petitioner, respondent and the interveners represented by the learned Counsel Shri V. G. Wankhede, Rule was made returnable forthwith and the matter was heard by consent. 4. In Writ Petition No. 605 of 1994 the petitioner is the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Lonar and challenge is to the notice dated 23-2-1994 convening a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 15-3-1994 for considering the motion of no-confidence against him. The main ground urged is that the notice does not disclose the name of the member who is to move the motion for the meeting. Similarly in Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1994 the petitioner is Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Mehkar and challenge is to the notice dated 29-8-1994 convening a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for considering the motion of no-confidence against him and here again the main ground is that the notice does not disclose the name of the person who is to move the motion in the meeting. It is not in dispute nor it can be so disputed in the wake of the contents of the notices, which are filed as Annexures to the petitions that in none of these two notices the names of the mover of the motion of no-confidence against the respective petitioners have been disclosed. 5. Now it is apparent from the provisions of section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') that the Collector has to convene, within seven days from the date of the receipt of requisition under sub-section (2) of section 72, a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for considering the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. Rules have been framed prescribing the form of requisition and the manner of making requisition to call a special meeting to consider a motion of no confidence in Presiding authorities under Zilla Parishad. These Rules are called the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Presiding Authorities (No-confidence Motion) Rules, 1962. As per Rule 2 of these Rules requisition to call a special meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence in the Chairman or Deputy Chairman or both, has to be in the form appended to the Rules and further that the requisition has to be accompanied by the text of the motion proposed to be moved specifying therein the grounds on which it is proposed to move the motion and the name of the Councillor who is to move the motion. The form of requisition appended to the Rules reveals that the requisition itself has to contain a declaration to the effect that the motion will be moved by Shri ……… Having regard to the provisions of Rule 2 of these Rules not only the requisition but also the text of the motion proposed to be moved against the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti which is to be accompanied with the requisition has to contain the name of the Councillor who will be moving the motion. 6. Convening a meeting for the purposes of considering the motion of no-confidence undisputedly is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Panchayat Samitis (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1965 (for short "the Conduct of Business Rules"). The notice convening ordinary or special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti as per provision of Rule 5 has to be in form 'A' and the form 'A' reveals that the copy of the motion should accompany the notice issued in form 'A'. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Rule 2 of the No-confidence Rules, 1962, and the form 'A' of the Conduct of Business Rules it is mandatory requirement that the name of the member who is to move the Motion in the meeting must be mentioned in the motion that accompanies the notice issued in form 'A'. In the instant matter undisputedly the motions accompanying the notices issued by the respondent-Collector convening the meetings since do not disclose the names of the movers, the notices issued by the respondent-Collector for convening the meetings are vitiated and as such are liable to be held as bad in law. 7. In the instant matter undisputedly the motions accompanying the notices issued by the respondent-Collector convening the meetings since do not disclose the names of the movers, the notices issued by the respondent-Collector for convening the meetings are vitiated and as such are liable to be held as bad in law. 7. The point involved in the instant matters in fact already stands covered by the decision of this Court in (Ganeshsinha Domansinha Hajari v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division)1, 1963 Mh.L.J. 569. Rule 2 of the No-confidence Rules then prevailing, as can be gathered from this judgment, was as under: “Form of notice.—The notice of a requisition for a motion of no-confidence in the President or Vice-President or both shall be in the form hereto appended. The notice shall be accompanied by the text of the motion proposed to be moved specifying therein the grounds on which it is proposed to move the motion and the name of the Councillor who shall move the motion.” Presently the said Rule 2 of the No-confidence Motion Rules is as under: “Form of requisition.—The requisition to call a special meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence in the President or Vice-President or both shall be in the form hereto appended. The requisition shall be accompanied by the text of the motion proposed to be moved specifying therein the grounds on which it is proposed to move the motion and the name of the Councillor who shall move the motion.” 8. It would be seen from the perusal of both these Rules that there is no substantial change therein and the requirement that the notice of requisition as per old Rule and the requisition as per present Rule shall be accompanied by the text of the motion proposed to be moved, specifying therein the grounds on which it is proposed to move the motion and the name of the Councillor who shall move the motion, has been kept in tact. In Ganeshsinha's case (cited supra) the word “therein” as used in the latter part of Rule 2 has been held to be referring to the “text of the motion proposed to be moved” and not to the notice. In Ganeshsinha's case (cited supra) the word “therein” as used in the latter part of Rule 2 has been held to be referring to the “text of the motion proposed to be moved” and not to the notice. It is also further held in this decision, “that the form of notice shows that the name of the mover has to be mentioned in the notice does not necessarily import that it has to be in the notice alone and not in the motion. On the other hand, it may well be that the Rule provides by way of abundant caution that the name has to be mentioned in the notice a second time.” The Court further held in this decision : “Section 72, sub-section (1), clearly prescribes that a motion of no-confidence may be made only after giving a notice thereof in the form and in the manner prescribed. The form and manner are prescribed by Rule 2 which itself is couched in very mandatory language. It says that the notice of requisition for a motion of no-confidence “shall” be in the form appended to the Rules and the notice “shall' be accompanied by the text of the motion proposed to be moved specifying therein the grounds etc. and the name of the mover. The word used is “shall” in either case, and we think that the word was advisedly used in framing the Rule. The normal construction of such a word in the context in which it is used would be to make the Rule mandatory. There is nothing else in the context of that Rule or of any other Rule or the Act to indicate that the provisions of the Rule are directory. Upon a construction of Rule 2, we think that the requirement that the grounds must be mentioned in the motion proposed to be moved is a mandatory requirement and would vitiate the notice given if the grounds do not appear in the motion accompanying the notice.” 9. In one another decision of this Court in (Dhrupad Bhagwan Sawle v. Collector, Buldana)2, 1986 Mh.L.J. 996, Rule 2 of the No-confidence Motion Rules in the present form was before the Court and this Court in this decision held, following the decision in Ganeshsinha's case (supra), quashed the notices of convening the meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence for want of grounds in the motion. 10. 10. In the result both the petitions are allowed. The notices dated 23-2-1994 and 29-8-1994. Annexures 'F' and 'A' in the respective Petitions Nos. 605/94 and 2400/94 are quashed and set aside. The proceedings of the meeting dated 15-3-1994 held pursuant to the notice dated 23-2-1994, Annexure 'F' in Writ Petition 605/94, are also quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed. ----