JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant having lost the writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1047 of 1999 before the learned single Judge is before us in this appeal. He has questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.3.1999 made by the learned Single Judge dismissing the aforementioned writ petition. 2. The appellant filed the writ petition stating that no confidence motion proposed to be moved against her as Sarpanch is not maintainable as the proposal regarding vote of no confidence was not in the proper form and it was signed by 5 Panchas out of which, two of them are facing disqualification proceedings on the ground that they failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition not agreeing with the contentions raised in the writ petition. The learned single judge in the impugned order has stated that no time limit is prescribed for completing the proceedings relating to disqualification. 4. As to the proforma of motion of no confidence, the learned Single Judge has taken a view that moving of a no confidence motion in a proforma is not mandatory. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant before us urged that proceedings relating to disqualification of two members cannot be kept pending for indefinite or a long time so as to defeat the very purpose of initiation of disqualification proceedings against two members. Since the proceedings against two members relating to their disqualification are not completed and they are kept pending, they will also be participating in the proceedings for no confidence motion. He also submitted that the motion of no confidence was not in the prescribed proforma. He finally submitted that the authority should complete the enquiry and pass orders with regard to disqualification of two members within a given time. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We can not find any fault with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it is not disputed that there is no time prescribed for completion of such enquiry relating to disqualification of members. However, it is desirable that such an enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible. We can not find any fault with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it is not disputed that there is no time prescribed for completion of such enquiry relating to disqualification of members. However, it is desirable that such an enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible. With regard to the vote of no confidence motion not being in the prescribed proforma, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that this was not a mandatory condition, in the absence of showing as to how any prejudice was caused to the appellant, we do not find any good or valid reasons to admit this appeal. Hence we reject this appeal at the stage of admission. 7. However, we found some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that proceedings relating to disqualification of two members should be completed as expeditiously as possible. The competent authority should complete the proceedings relating to disqualification of two members as expeditiously as possible.Appeal Dismissed-Proceedings on Disqualification of Members Directed to be Expedited. *******