ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner is seeking to quash the Notice of 'no confidence motion' at Annexure-B dated 2.6.2001 moved against him on the ground that the procedure prescribed has not been followed. Reliance has been placed upon Section 52(5) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. 2. I have perused the impugned notice at Annexure-B. The same has been issued on the basis of the requisition, fixing the date on 25.6.2001. The requisition was given to the Assistant Commissioner and acting upon the same the Assistant Commissioner issued the impugned notice. The same is in conformity with Rule 3 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Therefore, Section 52 of the Act relied upon by the Petitioner has no application to this case as it pertains to the meeting of Grama Panchayat and not relate to 'motion of no confidence'. 3. Petitioner has filed an interlocutory application seeking to raise additional ground to the effect that the notice at Annexure-B is in contravention of Rule 3. The said application to be rejected in limine as it is not in the prescribed manner. The additional ground sought to be raised must be mentioned in the application itself. That is not done in the instant case. On the other hand, the additional ground has been enclosed separately along with the application and affidavit. The affidavit is sworn to the effect that the statements made in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application accompanying the affidavit are true. The additional ground raised thus not supported by a duly sworn affidavit. On this ground alone the application is liable to be rejected. 4. It is also seen that the additional ground sought to be raised is wholly tenable. The requisition issued for the 'no confidence motion' is in Form I prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules and the same has been addressed to the Assistant Commissioner as prescribed in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The same is signed by 10 members. Therefore it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that the requisition given was not in accordance with Rule 3 or that the notice of 'no confidence motion' issued by the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and in contravention of Rule 3. The same is signed by 10 members. Therefore it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that the requisition given was not in accordance with Rule 3 or that the notice of 'no confidence motion' issued by the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and in contravention of Rule 3. Therefore, the additional ground sought to be raised, even on merits, is wholly untenable and falls to the ground. 5. Writ Petition is dismissed.