Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels for the non-petitioners No.1 to 4. (2). The petitioner Smt. Manjula has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus may be issued and the respondents no. 1,2 and 3 should be directed to pro- duce the corpus of Ward Panchas of Gram Panchayat Siyapur (named in the petition) and they may be left free and illegal detention and wrongful confinement may be removed and the entire proceedings initiated by the alleged `No confidence Motion be quashed and any other order or direction which this Court may considered be passed in favour of the petitioner. In short two allegations were made in the petition. The first was that the Panchas were being kept in unlawful detention and, therefore, prayer for issue of Habeas Corpus was made. The other allegation was that respondent No. 3 who holds the substantive post of Accounts Officer was not competent to legally issue the notice for convening meeting on 24th June, 1997 for considering `No Confidence Motion against the petitioner who is the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. (3). A report from the Superintendent of Police was called. Respondents were served with notices and they were represented by their Advocates. The learned Additional Advocate General who appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 on 23rd June, 1997 informed the Court that Panchas are present in person before the Court. The Panchas appeared in person and in open court they were asked whether they had been detained in unlawful detention by any person. They refuted the allegation of unlawful detention and emphatically said that they were free to go wherever they like, and do whatever they liked. The allegation of unlawful detention of the Pan- chas as contained in the petition was, therefore, not true. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that there were sufficient grounds for the petition to believe or come to the conclusion that the Panchas were kept in unlawful detention because they were not available in the village and relatives of some of the Panchas had reported to the Police that the whereabouts of the Pan- chas were not available. (4). (4). It is true that if the whereabouts of a person are not known to those who are ordinarily supposed to know then some anxiety might be created and those who develop anxiety and concern for the person whose whereabouts are not known may make efforts to find where that person is, but this circumstance alone does not justify anyone to make an allegation that there is a case of abduction or kidnapping or unlawful detention. Formation of a reasonable opinion is permissible but jumping to conclusion beyond that does not appear to be prudent and permissible. This is a common standard of prudence expected from everyone and, therefore, one who makes reckless allegation by drawing any adverse conclusion beyond the permissible limits may be said to be mis-leading himself and others by making an allegation of a kind which he ought not to make. Recently in one case the Honble Apex Court considered the question whether a citizen has a right to speak lie in Court or make false allegation the Honble Apex Court while disagreeing with the view taken by the High Court categorically stated that one who comes to the Court must come with clean hands and if the allegations made by such persons are false then his case is liable to be thrown away. In short the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court is those who come to the Court must come with absolute truth and if they do not comply with this command of law they suffer the consequence mentioned above. (5). Democracy is undoubtedly dependent upon the faith of the people and this is why under Article 51(a) of the Constitution faith in the Institutions created by or under the Constitution is enjoined as a fundamental duty of every citizen. If it is alleged that those who are supposed to carry out the functions of the Institutions of self government are so weak that they can be easily confined in unlawful deten- tion or that they are being kept in unlawful detention, such allegation has tendency to shake the faith of the people. It is, therefore, necessary that no such allegation should be made against the persons who constitute the Institutions set-up under the Constitution except in cases where such allegations are necessary as part of civic duty authorised by rules of prudence as well as the statutes. It is, therefore, necessary that no such allegation should be made against the persons who constitute the Institutions set-up under the Constitution except in cases where such allegations are necessary as part of civic duty authorised by rules of prudence as well as the statutes. The allegations of the nature that Panchas are being unlawfully detained is not condusive to the faith of masses in the Institution of Panchayat. This allegation must not be made unless there is sufficient grounds for making them. (6). This petition was filed mainly for the purpose of obtaining writ of Habeas Corpus from this Court on the ground that the Panchas were being unlawfully detai- ned. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the persons who were involved in the alleged unlawful detention this Court took steps which were considered necessary for securing justice but after conducting enquiry and ascertaining from the Panchas it was found that there was no unlawful detention of the Panchas by any person at any stage. On the aforesaid ground this petition deserves to be rejected and would have been rejected had the learned counsel for the petitioner not submitted that his another prayer deserves judicial consideration by the Court. (7). The second prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.3 was not competent to issue notice for convening the meeting on 24th June, 1997 for considering `No Confidence Motion. The prayer was made to stay the holding of the meeting but this court did not prohibit the holding of meeting. The publication of the result of the meeting was temporarily stayed by the Court. (8). The proceedings of the meeting and the manner in which they were conducted is not the subject matter of this writ petition and, therefore, the question relating to procedure in which the meeting was conducted or the result thereof need note discussed. (9). The solitary question which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants this court to decide is whether the respondent No.3 was legally competent to issue the notice for convening the meeting on 24th June, 1997. The learned counsel for the non- petitioner have urged that this question should not be decided because this petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of mis-joinder of cause of action. The learned counsel for the non- petitioner have urged that this question should not be decided because this petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of mis-joinder of cause of action. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, that respondent No.3 was legally competent to issue the notice because he was holding the charge of the Competent Officer and, therefore, he was entitled to issue the notice for con- vening the meeting. (10). After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the meeting had already been convened on 24th June, 1997 but the result of the meeting has not been published as yet as it was stayed by this Court and the petitioner did not take part in the meeting as has been alleged by her in the re-joinder, for the reasons stated by her, it would be desirable that all the questions relating to the aforesaid meeting as well as the manner in which it was conducted and the result thereof should be considered separately if any other appropriate proceeding is instituted in this Court. For these reasons I do not want to decide the question of competency of respondent No.3 to issue the notice for meeting convened on 24th June, 1997 in this petition. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the legal authority of respondent No.3 to convene the meeting on 24th June, 1997 by statuting appropriate proceedings if she is so advised. So far as the writ of Habeas Corpus is concerned this petition has no merit it deserves to be dismissed. Petitioner is given three days as prayed by her counsel for taking appropriate action to challenge the authority of respondent No.3 as well as the proceedings of the meeting, if she is so advised. The result of the meeting shall not be published for a period of three days calculated from today.