JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashment of the order dated 15.2.96 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Gopad-Banas (District Sidhi) on the ground that after the no-confidence motion was carried against the respondent No. 4 by 15 to 5, the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to set at naught the proceedings by observing that the matter was required to be re-considered. The respondent No. 4 in his return has stated that the conduction of the meeting was absolutely illegal. For the purposes of section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is the only competent authority to receive a notice of no confidence to appoint a presiding officer and pass further orders. According to the respondent No. 4, the Gram Panchayat Lkkoda falls within the jurisdiction of Sub Divisional Officer Churhat. The Sub Divisional Officer Gopad-Banas neither could receive no confidence motion nor could appoint the presiding officer for conduction of the meeting. The respondent-State in its return, has stated that for the period between 17.1.96 to 12.12.96 Shri Moolchand Verma was holding the charge of the office of the Sub Divisional Officer Churhat. According to them, the Sub-Divisional Officer Gopal-Banas was not working as incharge Sub-Division Officer in Churhat. The facts show that on 1.2.96 a notice of no confidence was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer Gopad-Banas who after receiving the said notice registered the case No. 20-B/121/95-96. On 3.2.96, the Sub-Divisional Officer Gopad-Banas asked the Panchas, etc. to remain present in the meeting to be held on 13.2.96 for consideration of motion. The records also show that the said Sub Divisional Officer of Gopad-Banas appointed the Naib-Tahsildar as presiding officer for the meeting. According to section 21 of the Act, a motion of no confidence is to be passed by the Gram Panchayat. The State Government has framed the rules known as "Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Thatha Vice President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994." According to Rule 3 of the said rules, a member desiring to move a motion of no confidence, is obliged to give a notice to the prescribed authority in the form appended to these rules. Undisputedly, the prescribed authority in the present matter was Sub-Divisional Officer Churhat and not Sub-Divisional Officer Gopad-Banas. The submission of the notice to an authority who is not the prescribed authority, would amount to non-submission of the notice to the prescribed authority. If a person who does hold the authority, receives the notice and proceeds further with the matter, makes appointment of the presiding officer and fixes a date for convening the meeting, then, all these acts would be without jurisdiction. In the present case, the Sub Divisional Officer Gopad-Banas was not the prescribed authority. Therefore, neither he had jurisdiction to appoint a presiding officer nor had he any jurisdiction to fix a date for convening the meeting. As the initiation of the proceedings was contrary to law and appointment of the presiding officer was an act without jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that the' proceedings are vitiated right from the inception and any resolution passed in such a meeting, would be bad. Without entering into merits of the challenge to Annexure P-1, this Court is of the opinion that as notice was submitted to an authority which was not a prescribed authority and as the presiding officer was appointed by a person who was not a prescribed authority, all proceedings conducted u/s 21 of the Act were without jurisdiction and bad. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.