JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mohanlal, petitioner herein, was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sarsi District Chittorgarh. Out of 10 members of the Gram Panchayat seven expressed no confidence against him and a resolution dated 22.9.2002 was passed by them which was submitted alongwith notice Anx. 1 to the respondent No. 2, Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad on 24.9.2002. The Chief Executive Officer issued notices to all the members of the Gram Panchayat. The copy sent to the petitioner is Anx. 2 by which the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion was fixed at 11.00 A.M. on 17.10.2002 at the head quarter of the Gram Panchayat Sarsi. Simultaneously the Chief Executive Officer has nominated respondent No. 3, Tehsildar Nimbahera to preside over the meeting scheduled to be held on 17.10.2002. On 17.10.2002 in the meeting held for consideration of no confidence motion not only the petitioner but the remaining nine members also participated and the no confidence motion was supported by eight members and was passed vide Anx. 3. 3. Aggrieved against that the petitioner has filed this petition raising amongst others the technical grounds that the meeting of no confidence motion could be convened by the competent authority and not by the Tehsildar. A person who is IAS or RAS can be the competent authority to convene the meeting referred above. Similarly, it was contended that the Tehsildar instead of following the procedure of secret ballet for carrying out the no confidence motion asked the members to cast their votes by show. of hands. According to the petitioner both the legal objections referred above go to vitiate the proceedings Anx. 3 by which no confidence motion has been held to be carried through. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar. 5. For nomination of Tehsildar has been held to be not mandatory. The meeting of no confidence motion shall be presided over either by the Chief Executive Officer or any officer nominated by him. If for some reason or the other while nominating any other officer the Chief Executive Officer fails to mention any reason as to why he was unable to do so himself, that by itself was not held to be causing prejudice to the petitioner. If for some reason or the other while nominating any other officer the Chief Executive Officer fails to mention any reason as to why he was unable to do so himself, that by itself was not held to be causing prejudice to the petitioner. In the matter at hand also the petitioner has not pleaded what prejudices were caused if the meeting was presided over by the Tehsildar instead of Chief Executive Officer. 6. The notice was sent to the members of the Gram Panchayat through the Block Development Officer instead of sending it through U.P.C. This Infirmity also does not go to vitiate no confidence motion passed against the petitioner, because under the proviso of sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 there is a discretion vested in the Chief Executive Officer by which notices can be served by other modes if the same cannot be served expeditiously by post. 7. Last submission of the learned counsel that voting in the no confidence motion were held by show of hands is also not found to be contrary to the Rules. No where in Section 37 of the Act or the Rules made thereunder specific direction is given as to how the voting Is to be conducted. According to Section 37(8) of the Act the motion shall be put to vote after termination of debate of discussion of no confidence motion. Therefore, the discretion vested with the person who presided over the meeting of no confidence motion either to hold the voting by secret ballet or by show of hands. Had the petitioner raised any objection and even then Tehsildar permitted the vote to be polled by show of hands and specific prejudice was caused to the petitioner, the matter would have been different. 8. The legal objections referred above amongst others were also taken in almost all the writ petitions filed against no confidence motion and have been.rejected. Recently in Gautam Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1205/2002, decided on 22.10.2002 also this Court has thoroughly dealt with such legal objections and have found them not tenable. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition. The same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******