JUDGMENT It appears that after the Sarpanch was placed under suspension, the petitioner was given charge of the office of Sarpanch. Vide Annexure P-8, a no-confidence motion was made against the petitioner who was working as Prabhari Sarpanch. According to Annexure P-8, the grounds for making the motion were: 1/411/2 izHkkjh ljiap ds izfr fo"okl ugha gSA 1/421/2 fuekZ.k dk;ksZ esa vfu;ferrkA The said resolution was passed in accordance with the required majority. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed a dispute under section 21(4) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The Collector, Panna not only dismissed the dispute, but simultaneously observed that the said motion was against Up-Sarpanch also. He accordingly directed that as the post of Up-Sarpanch because of the said motion of no-confidence has fallen vacant, fresh elections be held. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.98, passed by the Collector, the petitioner has filed this petition. Though number of the questions have been raised in the petition, but Shri Chakraborty confined himself to one question. According to him, the said no-confidence motion as contained in Annexure P-8, was only against Prabhari Sarpanch, the Collector Prescribed Authority could not hold that the petitioner stands removed from his office of Up-Sarpanch. Shri Thakur, learned counsel for State was unable to support that part of the order. According to section 21, a no-confidence motion is to be made against Sarpanch and/or Up-Sarpanch. The no-confidence motion is governed by the provisions of section 21 and the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. According to Rule 3, any member of a Gram Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, shall give a notice thereof to the prescribed authority in the form appended to 1994 rules. Where a member desires to move the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch both, he shall give separate notices for the purpose. The prescribed authority, on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt. Thereafter a Presiding Officer is to be appointed and a meeting is to be convened. The prescribed authority, on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt. Thereafter a Presiding Officer is to be appointed and a meeting is to be convened. It does not appear from the motion that it was ever moved against the Up-Sarpanch. From Annexure P-8, it would clearly appear that when the petitioner was holding the charge of the office of Sarpanch, members of the Gram Panchayat were not satisfied with his working as Prabhari Sarpanch. They did not move any motion against the petitioner that they were showing no-confidence against the petitioner as a Up-Sarpanch. The authority deciding the dispute under section 21(4) of the Act has not taken into consideration the rules and the language of the Act. The order passed by the authority declaring that after passing of the motion of no-confidence petitioner cannot continue as Up-Sarpanch, is patently illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. That part of the order is quashed. The petition, to the extent indicated above, is allowed. No costs.