JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Jeeni, Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu in the elections held in the year 1995. Certain members of the panchayat samiti have expressed their intention in writing to bring the no confidence motion against the petitioner 5 and the competent authority issued notice on 10.3.1998 for calling the meeting of no confidence on 25.3.1998. Later on, it appears that the no confidence motion was passed. The petitioner has challenged the no confidence proceedings by challenging the constitutional validity of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994) and also the Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). 2. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that Part IX of the Constitution of. India provided the basic frame-work of the panchayats and well defined limited area in respect of which State legislature has legislative competence. In Part IX of the Constitution of India, Article 243F of the Constitution provides for only disqualification for membership of member of a panchayat. There is no provisions made for removal of the member and thus the provision under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 and Rule 21 of the Rules of 1996 for removal of the Chairperson is beyond the constitutional permissible limit. 3. Article 243C(5) of the Constitution of India provides for election of the Chairperson of a panchayat at the village level in a manner provided by Legislature of a State whereas Article 243F lays down the disqualification for a person to be chosen as a member of the Panchayati Raj Institution, which are-if the person is o disqualified by or under any law for the time in force for the purposes of elections to the legislature of the State concerned, under the proviso he shall not be held to be so disqualified though he is less than 25 years of age, if he attains the age of 21 years and; if a person is disqualified by or under any law made by the legislature of the State. Article 243 F provides for a disqualification to be chosen of a member of the Panchayati Raj Institution whereas Article 243C (5) provides for election of a Chairperson of a Panchayat at village level. Article 243 F provides for a disqualification to be chosen of a member of the Panchayati Raj Institution whereas Article 243C (5) provides for election of a Chairperson of a Panchayat at village level. Neither provision has restricted the State Legislature to make law in regard to removal of the elected Chairperson of the Panchayati Raj Institution. Powers to make law in regard thereto is to be found in schedule VII List 11 Entry (5) which provides as under : 4. "Local government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration." 5. The Entry is very wide and empowers the State legislature to legislate with respect to any subject relating to the Local Government including constitution of the local authorities and removal of the Chairperson or the member of such local authority. The provisions in Part IX of the Constitution relating to the panchayat does not restrict or curtail the powers which otherwise could be exercised by the State legislature under Schedule VII List II Entry (5). Section 37 of the Act of 1994 provides for removal of the Chairperson by motion of no confidence passed by not less than two-third of the elected members of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution after following the procedure laid down in the previous sub-sections of Section 37 of the Act of 1994. The removal of Pradhan by majority of two-third members present and voting, as laid down in Section 37 of the Act is not a subject which is beyond the jurisdiction of the State legislature, it being within the legislative competence of the State legislature under Entry (5) of List II of the Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The provision of removal of the Chairperson of Panchayati Raj Institution is well within the jurisdiction of the State legislature and the powers are not curtailed by Chapter IX of the Constitution of India. 6. The validity of Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 in so far as it empowers the member of the gram panchayat to remove the Pradhan of Gram Sabha by moving a motion of no confidence is upheld by the Apex Court in a decision report in AIR 1998 SC 1222 , Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Rajadhikari . The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 in so far as it empowers the members of the Gram Panchayat to remove the Pradhan of Gram Sabha by moving a motion of no confidence is not unconstitutional and void being violative of concept of democracy or is not arbitrary and unreasonable so as to hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The provision made in Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act is more or less similar to that of Section 37 of the Act of 1994 and the decision .rendered by the Supreme Court applies to Rajasthan Act in all force. 7. For the aforesaid reasons the challenge of constitutional validity of Section 37 and also the Rules 21 which provides for notice in the matter of no confidence fails. 8. It is then submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the notice of no confidence was not given in prescribed form. Section 113 of the Act of 1994 is a complete answer to this argument. Section 113 prescribes that no notice issued under Panchayat Act shall be invalid on account of any defect or omission in its form. The notice cannot be held defective because it is not issued in the prescribed form. 9. The next contention raised by Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, counsel for the petitioner, that two of the panchas Mr. Hoshiyar Singh and Dhadhu Ram from Ward No. 5 and 4, respectively, were not entitled to vote and participate in the no confidence motion proceedings. They were ceased to be the members on account of their absence from three consecutive meetings of the Panchayati Raj Institution without giving information in writing to such Panchayati Raj Institution. The member shall not be ceased to be a member under Section 39 of the Act unless the competent authority after giving an opportunity of being heard to the member declare him to have become so ineligible. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act is very clear in that regard which provides further that until a declaration under this sub-section is made, the member shall continue to hold his office. So the member shall not cease to be a member unless a declaration to that effect is made. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act is very clear in that regard which provides further that until a declaration under this sub-section is made, the member shall continue to hold his office. So the member shall not cease to be a member unless a declaration to that effect is made. There is a positive direction in 11 proviso that the member shall continue to hold his office unless he is declared to be ineligible by competent authority. 10. In the present case the petitioner has not produced any order of declaration of two members to have become ineligible. There is no merit in the submission. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred only).Writ Petition Dismissed. *******