JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Heard both the sides. 2.This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 21-3-1997 issued by respondent No. 2-- the Tahsildar, Parola, regarding no confidence motion against the petitioner. 3.The petitioner is elected as Sarpanch of Group Gram Panchayat, Mohadi, Taluka Parola, District Jalgoan in 1992 and thereafter on 1-3-1996 a no confidence motion was moved against him which was defeated in the meeting held on 6-3-1996. Again some members sent a notice regarding no confidence to the respondent No. 2 the Tahsildar- and the Tahsildar had fixed a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the said purpose on 7-11-1996. By his letter dated 6-11-1996 the Tahsildar informed the concerned members that in view of the amended provisions of section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 the motion was not entertainable and hence the meeting scheduled on 7-11-1996 was cancelled. A group of four members out of 7 members of the Group Gram Panchayat submitted a fresh notice of no confidence to the Tahsildar on 21-3-1997 and the Tahsildar fixed a meeting of the Gram Panchayat members for the said purpose on 27-3-1997. This third notice has been impugned by the petitioner in the present petition. 4.The main ground of challenge to the impugned notice is that the amended provisions of section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act does not permit another notice of motion to be entertained within one year from 6-11-1996. In addition, mala-fides have been imputed on the ground of political pressure by the local M.L.A., but Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not press for the second ground of challenge at the time of final hearing. 5.The provisions of section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act were amended in 1992 as well as 1994. In addition, mala-fides have been imputed on the ground of political pressure by the local M.L.A., but Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not press for the second ground of challenge at the time of final hearing. 5.The provisions of section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act were amended in 1992 as well as 1994. Prior to the said amendments, section 35(3-A) of the said Act read as under : "If the motion is not carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the members (other than associate members) who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat, no such fresh motion shall be moved against the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, the Upa-Sarpanch within a period of six months from the date of the rejection of the motion." The above provision, after its amendments by Maharashtra Act No. X of 1992 and Maharashtra Act No. XXI of 1994, reads as under : "If the motion is not moved or is not carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat, no such fresh motion shall be moved against the Sarpanch, or, as the case may be, the Upa-Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date of such special meeting." 6.It is the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the impugned notice dated 21-3-1997 has to be considered with reference to the second motion of no confidence dated 6-11-1996 and not the first motion of no confidence dated 1-3-1996 and if viewed through that angle, the impugned notice is within the period of one year as prescribed from 6-11-1996. The learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this stand solely on the ground that in the amended provisions the words "is not carried" have been substituted by the words "is not moved or is not carried" and relying upon the difference between "carried" and "moved", the learned advocate submits that even if the meeting scheduled on 7-11-1996 was cancelled by the Tahsildar, the notice submitted by the majority of members on 6-11-1996 to the Tahsildar amounts to the motion moved even though there was no occasion to consider the notice of motion and put it to vote as scheduled on 7-11-1996. It is the contention of the petitioner that even if there was no occasion for defeating the motion, it is sufficient that the notice of motion is submitted to the Tahsildar so as to reach to the conclusion that the motion was moved. The interpretation of the learned advocate for the petitioner is fallacious and the same cannot be accepted. 7.As per rule 2(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 the notice of no confidence is required to be given by a majority of members of the Panchayat whereas, as per section 35(3-A) of the said Act, the motion is required to be moved by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members, who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat. In the instance case, there are in all 7 members and the notice of no confidence was moved on 6-11-1996 by four members out of 7 thus satisfying the requirements of the above rule. However, in the actual meeting to be arranged by the Tahsildar, what is necessary is that at least two-thirds of the total number of members must support the motion and then only the motion is deemed to be moved. The harmonious construction of the provisions of the Rule 2(3) of the said Rules and section 35(3-A) of the said Act clearly leads to the conclusion that the term "motion is not moved" is synonymous with and amounts to "motion is not carried". To decide whether the motion was moved or not moved, the meeting in pursuance of the notice of no confidence must be held and vote must be recorded either against or in favour of the motion. To decide whether the motion was moved or not moved, the meeting in pursuance of the notice of no confidence must be held and vote must be recorded either against or in favour of the motion. In the instant case, the Tahsildar, having realised that the first motion was defeated on 6-3-1996 and the second notice of no confidence dated 6-11-1996 was within the period of one year and was not entertainable in view of the amended provisions of section 35(3-A) of the Act, rightly cancelled the meeting scheduled on 7-11-1996 and the said cancellation of the meeting does not, by any stretch of imagination, mean that the motion was not moved. The impugned notice dated 21-3-1997, has therefore, to be considered with reference to the date when the first no confidence motion was defeated on 6-3-1996 and if so considered the said impugned notice is not within the period of one year and hence not barred by the provisions of section 35(3-A) of the Act. 8.In the result, the grounds of challenge are not sustainable and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. *****