JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner - Smt. Kanya Kumari, Pradhan - Panchayat Samiti, Ghatol, Zilla Parishad, Banswara; has assailed notice (Ex. 2) and copy of no-confidence motion (Ex. 1) dated 15th June, 2002 through this petition. 2. Exs. 1 and 2 were forwarded by members of the Panchayat Samiti, Ghatol to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Banswara with the averments that they have lost confidence in the petitioner, therefore, necessary meeting for removing the petitioner from the post of Pradhan be called. Respondent No. 2 - Mr. Ram Nath Chahil, Additional Collector (Vikas) & Ex-officio Project Officer, DRDA & Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari, Zilla Parishad, Banswara, consequently issued notice Ex. 4 on 15-6-2002 itself to all the members of the Panchayat Samiti, by which a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against petitioner was scheduled to be held at 11AM on 26-6-2002 at the headquarter of the Panchayat Samiti, Ghatol itself. 3. Meanwhile, this petition was filed on 21-6-2002, raising manifold objections and learned Vacation Judge by order dated 25-6-2002, while issuing notices of the writ petition, gave a direction that the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion scheduled on 26-6-2002 may be convened but the result would not be declared and no further proceedings shall be taken. Consequently, the result arrived at in the meeting was put in a sealed cover. 4. The submissions of learned counsel are that petitioner contested the election with the support of Bhartiya Janta Party whereas one Mst. Kanku Devi contested against her with the support of ruling Congress Party and therefore, out of political rivalry, to dislodge the petitioner, a conspiracy was hatched in highly undemocratic manner and in utter breach of the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. According to the petitioner, the notice Ex. 2 was signed by 10 members however, proposal of the no-confidence motion (Ex.1) attached with it was signed by 6 members only. The notices issued to the members by the Chief Executive Officer were also not accompanied by copy of the proposed no-confidence motion. Respondent No. 2 joined as Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari, Zilla Parishad, Banswara 15-6-2002 itself in pursuance of Government order dated 12-6-2002 (Ex.3). The notices issued to the members by the Chief Executive Officer were also not accompanied by copy of the proposed no-confidence motion. Respondent No. 2 joined as Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari, Zilla Parishad, Banswara 15-6-2002 itself in pursuance of Government order dated 12-6-2002 (Ex.3). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has not been appointed as Chief Executive Officer according to Section 2(1) of the Act of 1994 and as such, he can not exercise powers and duties of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Banswara. According to learned counsel, Chief Executive Officer is "Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari" and not "Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari". 5. Another submission of the learned counsel was that Section 7 of the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder are mandatory in nature. Since these provisions are regarding dislodging, strict compliance thereof in letter & spirit is necessary else entire action will be nullity. Neither the notice was in the prescribed form nor it was signed by not less than ⅓rd of the elected members. Similarly, Exs. 1 and 2 have not been addressed to the Chief Executive Officer nor any endorsement by the Chief Executive Officer was made on it. Similarly, notice Ex. 4 issued by the respondent No. 2 was also not in accordance with the provisions of rule 21(2) of the Rules of 1996 because it was not accompanied by copy of the proposed motion. 6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that after the service of notices Ex. 4, 21 members of the Panchayat Samiti were hijacked and they were detained at secret places and as such, petitioner could not contact them to make her position clear, consequently thereof, she was denied opportunity of 7 clear days of canvassing, as provided under Section 37 of the Act of 1994. Though the petitioner made a written complaint to above effect on 19-6-2002 to respondent No. 4 - the Superintendent of Police, Banswara district but till date no action was taken in that respect. Therefore, it was prayed along with Exs. 1 and 2, entire proceedings shall be quashed from very inception. 7. The respondents denied all the averments and allegations made against them and have come with specific plea that there was neither any pre-planned conspiracy nor the ruling party supported Mst. Kanku Devi and the no-confidence motion Ex. Therefore, it was prayed along with Exs. 1 and 2, entire proceedings shall be quashed from very inception. 7. The respondents denied all the averments and allegations made against them and have come with specific plea that there was neither any pre-planned conspiracy nor the ruling party supported Mst. Kanku Devi and the no-confidence motion Ex. 1 was also signed by all 10 members. It was submitted that petitioner obtained photocopy of only first page of the no-confidence motion (Ex. 1). The photocopy of back side of no-confidence motion Ex. 1, which bears signature of remaining 6 members was purposely withheld by the petitioner. It is stated that notice Ex. 2 contained signature of 10 members, which indicates that copy of the no-confidence motion Ex. 1 was also having signature of 10 members. A photocopy of the notice Annx. R/1 has been filed in support of the contention. 8. The copies of notifications Annxs. R/2, R/3 and R/4 have also been filed to prove that the Additional Collector (Vikas) & Ex-officio Project Officer, DRDA was also entrusted the work of Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Banswara. Even if the respondent No. 2 may have been transferred to this post on 15-6-2002 vide order dated 12-6-2002, yet he has been validly appointed as Chief Executive Officer. According to the respondents "Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari" and "Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari" are one & same post. Photostat copies of the notices issued to the members of the Panchayat Samiti were also submitted (Exs. 6 to 32), showing that along with the notices copy of the proposed no-confidence motion was also sent to the members. Out of these, Ex. 14 is copy of notice received by the petitioner - Kanya Kumari, which bears her signature. According to respondents all the necessary formalities were complied with. 9. It is further denied that no member was hijacked. Had it been so, any relative of the member would have complained to authority concerned. Annx. R/6 copy of the letter by Circle Officer, Ghatol was also submitted in support thereof. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 11. 9. It is further denied that no member was hijacked. Had it been so, any relative of the member would have complained to authority concerned. Annx. R/6 copy of the letter by Circle Officer, Ghatol was also submitted in support thereof. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 11. According to Section 7 of the Act of 1994, the motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution may be made by a written notice signed by not less than one third of the directly elected members, together with a copy of the proposed motion, which shall be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the notice, to the competent authority; who shall forward a copy of such notice together with copy of the proposed motion to the con cerned Panchayati Raj institution and convene a meeting for consideration of the motion at the office of concerned Panchayati Raj institution, on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than 30 days from the date notice was delivered. The competent authority shall give to the members a notice of not less than 7 clear days of such meeting, who shall preside at such meeting and at the meeting, the Presiding Officer shall read to the members the motion for consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare the same to open for debate. No debate on the motion can be adjourned and such debate shall automatically terminate upon expiry of 2 hours, if not concluded earlier. Thereafter, the motion shall be put to Board. The Presiding Officer shall not speak on merits of the motion and shall not be entitled to vote thereon. 12. In the matter at hand, notice Ex. 2 bears names and signatures of 10 elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, which is admittedly more than one third, the total strength of elected members being 27. Simply because on the front page of copy of proposed motion (Ex. 1) names & signatures of 6 members were mentioned, that was not indicative of the fact that only 6 members have signed. Annx. R/1 is copy of the proposed motion submitted on behalf of respondents. Simply because on the front page of copy of proposed motion (Ex. 1) names & signatures of 6 members were mentioned, that was not indicative of the fact that only 6 members have signed. Annx. R/1 is copy of the proposed motion submitted on behalf of respondents. On its back, there are names & signatures of 4 other members of the Panchayat Samiti and thereafter is signature of petitioner Kanya Kumari herself, which has not been denied by the petitioner. Even if the petitioner may have signed Annx. All to get photostat copy of the proposal of no-confidence motion, it was expected of her to have submitted complete copy of Annx. R/1. She seems to have purposely withheld complete information with regard to noconfidence motion. 13. Even according to sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act of 1994, it is only written notice of intention to make motion, which shall be signed by not less than one third of directly elected members. Nowhere there is any condition that copy of the proposed motion accompanied thereto shall also to be signed by those one third or any number of elected members. 14. Thus, judging the matter from all angles, I do not find any force in the submission that motion Ex. 1 was signed by less than one third of the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti. 15. A very feeble argument was advanced that notice Ex. 2 was not according to rule 21 of the Rules of 1996. Though according to sub rule (1) of rule 21 of the Rules of 1996, the written notice shall be in the Form No. 1, however, this is not a mandatory requirement that the notice should always be in Form No. 1. The notice Ex. 2 on comparison with Form No. 1 is found to be almost pari materia with it. It is addressed to Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari, Zilla Parishad, Banswara whereafter the language used in Form No. 1 is also used in Ex. 2. Even the date and place are mentioned in it. Only difference is that in Form No. 1 date is below place whereas in Ex. 2, date is above place. Except above, there is no other change found upon comparison of Form No. 1 with notice Ex. 2 available on the file. 16. 2. Even the date and place are mentioned in it. Only difference is that in Form No. 1 date is below place whereas in Ex. 2, date is above place. Except above, there is no other change found upon comparison of Form No. 1 with notice Ex. 2 available on the file. 16. According to Section 13 of the Act of 1994, no notice issued under this Act shall be invalid on account of any deficiency or omission in its form. In Banveer v. State, (2000) 1 WLC 736 : (1999 AIHC 4596) , in similar situation, it was held that notice can not be held defective because it was not issued in prescribed form. Therefore, there is no substance in this submission of the learned counsel. 17. As regards endorsement on the notice by the Chief Executive Officer, during the course of arguments, respondents have filed original of notice Ex. 2 (Annx. R/5) which bears an endorsement dated 15-6-2002 signed by respondent No. 2 that it was presented at 3:45 PM on 15-6-2002. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that all the 10 elected members, whose names and signatures are mentioned in this notice, presented themselves this notice to respondent No. 2. Therefore, the defect pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner has not been substantiated. 18. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhoot centered his arguments more on the appointment of respondent No. 2 - Mr. Ram Nath Chahil as Chief Executive Officer. 19. According to sub-section (2) of Section 7, the notice along with copy of proposed motion is to be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the notice, to the competent authority. Sub-section (vii) of Section of the Act of 1994 defines 'competent authority' as the officer or authority the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint to perform such functions and exercise such powers of a competent authority with respect to such provisions of this Act. 20. By notification No. F-4(7)RDPR/Legal/ 194/5832 dated 12-12-1994, published in the Rajasthan Government Gazette on 26-12-1994, Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad has been appointed as 'competent authority' under Section 37(2) of the Act of 1994. 21. 20. By notification No. F-4(7)RDPR/Legal/ 194/5832 dated 12-12-1994, published in the Rajasthan Government Gazette on 26-12-1994, Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad has been appointed as 'competent authority' under Section 37(2) of the Act of 1994. 21. Similarly, according to rule 21 of the Rules of 1996, a written notice of intention to make motion, expressing want of confidence under Section 37 of the Act, shall be delivered to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. 22. 'Chief Executive Officer' has been defined in Section 2 of the Act of 1994. which means - an officer of the Indian Administrative Services or Rajasthan Administrative Services or Project Director, who shall be Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad and appointed by the Government. 23. In the matter at hand, Ex. 3 is order dated 12-6-2002 by which at serial No. 11 Mr. Ram Nath Chahil (respondent No. 2) has been appointed as Additional Collector (Vikas) & Ex officio Project Director, DRDA as also Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari, Zilla Parishad, Banswara. Annx. R/2 dated 10-8-1999 is an order, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Department, by which nomenclature of Additional Collector (Vikas) & Ex-officio Project Director, DRDA has been changed to Additional Collector (Vikas) & Ex-officio Project Director, DRDA-cum-Chief Executive Officer an style='font-family:Ankit'HINDI MATTER/b/spanZilla Parishad. Similarly, Annx. R/4 issued on 14-8-2001 has been submitted by which Additional Collector (Vikas) & Ex-officio Project Director, DRDA-cum-Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari, Zilla Parishads have been assigned duties of the Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Parishads. 24. Mr. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate that there is another post of 'Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari' in addition to 'Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari'. When Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari has been appointed as Chief Executive Officers throughout Rajasthan to look after and conduct day-to-day proceedings of the Zilla Parishads then it can not be said that he has not been conferred powers of competent authority, mentioned in sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. There is not an iota of evidence available on the file that 'Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari' and 'Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari' are two different posts anywhere in Zilla Parishads of the State. 25. Firstly, there is no defect so far as appointment of respondent No. 2 as Chief Executive Officer is concerned. There is not an iota of evidence available on the file that 'Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari' and 'Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari' are two different posts anywhere in Zilla Parishads of the State. 25. Firstly, there is no defect so far as appointment of respondent No. 2 as Chief Executive Officer is concerned. Even assuming that 'Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari' and 'Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari' are two distinct terminology then also, it can be safely said that difference so pointed but does not go to root of the matter and can be dealth with under the doctrine of curability. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 is a RAS officer, appointed as Additional Collector (Development) as also ex-officio Project Director, DRDA, which are essential conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1994. The functions of competent authority/ Chief Executive Officer are of vital importance because under Section 39 of the Act of 1994, a member can be declared ineligible by the Chief Executive Officer. Similarly, under Section 37 of the Act of 1994, a no-confidence motion can also be passed against any member of the Panchayati Raj Institution in a meeting presided by the competent authority Chief Executive Officer. If the respondent No. 2 was not competent authority or Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, such objections could have been raised by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 or any of the senior officers of the Panchayati Raj Department. Therefore, there is no merit in this submission either. 26. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 21 elected members have been hijacked has also no force because had any member been hijacked, his relatives may have made some complaint to Police or higher authorities. The complaint to above effect made by the petitioner to respondent No. 4 - SP, Banswara was, after investigation by the Circle Officer, found without any basis as per Annx. R/6. 27. Lastly, regarding furnishing copy of the proposed motion to members, it has been mentioned in notices Exs. 6 to 32 that copy of motion was also attached with the notice. Ex. 14 is the notice received by the petitioner. Had any copy of the notice was not attached with it, she should have mentioned so while putting her signature on Ex. 14. When petitioner had got copy of proposed no-confidence motion Ex. 6 to 32 that copy of motion was also attached with the notice. Ex. 14 is the notice received by the petitioner. Had any copy of the notice was not attached with it, she should have mentioned so while putting her signature on Ex. 14. When petitioner had got copy of proposed no-confidence motion Ex. 1, it can be safely said that she had knowledge of the averments mentioned in the no-confidence motion. Thus, this contention also has no force. 28. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same stands dismissed. The order of this Court dated 25-6-2002 by which result of the meeting dated 26-6-2002 was directed to be withheld, is revoked. The respondents are directed to declare the result and proceed according to law.Petition dismissed.. *******