Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Present petition is directed against the order dated 2 6.2002 passed by the District Collector, Bharatpur and against the notice dated 2 6.2002 also issued by District Collector, Bharatpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the elected ward members of Municipal Board Kumher District Bharatpur. Total 20 ward members were elected. In addition to the elected ward members there are two co-opted members. 3. District Collector Bharatpur issued a notice dated 2 6.2002 for convening a meeting for consideration of motion upon the request made by the petitioners. An application dated 16.2002 along with no confidence motion duly signed by petitioners was moved against the Chairman of Municipal Board Kumher to the District Collector Bharatpur. 4. It is given out by petitioners that no action was taken on the aforesaid application dated 16.2002 till 16.2002. In the meantime, petitioners moved another written application duly signed and duly attested by Notary Public to District collector to withdraw their earlier application dated 16.2002. .5. On application dated 16.2002 so moved on behalf of the petitioners to withdraw their earlier application dated 16.2002 regarding no confidence motion against the Chairman of Municipal Board .Kumher, the District Collector fixed a date for hearing on the application dated 16.2002 to decide this question as to whether such application can be entertained or not, once an application for no confidence motion has been moved, such application can be withdrawn by subsequent application. 6. Another application dated 19.6.2002 was also moved on behalf of respondent No. 4 Chairman of Municipal Board, Kumher with intention to summon the eight ward members who moved the application dated 16.2002 for withdrawal of the application for no confidence motion dated 16.2002. 7. TheDistrict Collector, Bharatpur after hearing the rival submissions of the parties dismissed the application ot the petitioner dated 16.2002 vide its judgment dated 2 6.2002. 8. After dismissing the application dated 16.2002 the District Collector, Bharatpur issued a notice dated 2 6.2002 for convening a meeting for consideration of application for no confidence motion dated 16.2002 against the Chairman and fixed the date 7.2002 and has also authorised the SDo Kumher to preside over the meeting. 9. Beforethe date fixed for consideration of motion i.e. 7.2002 the petitioners filed this writ petition before this Court. Matter was listed before this Court on 28.6.2002 and 7.2002. 9. Beforethe date fixed for consideration of motion i.e. 7.2002 the petitioners filed this writ petition before this Court. Matter was listed before this Court on 28.6.2002 and 7.2002. Since the petitioners in view of the order dated 28.6.2002 of this Court has not filed notices for respondents No. 1 to 3 the petitioner was directed to file the notices for respondent No. 1 to 3 and learned Advocate General who was present in the Court was requested to accept the notices on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3. On the joint request the matter was listed on 7.2002. 10. On 7.2002 after hearing the arguments ot respective parties at length respondents were given liberty to convene the meeting for no confidence motion as it was scheduled to be held on 7.2002 but were directed not to declare the result of no confidence motion without seeting prior permission of this Court and were further directed to keep the result of no confidence motion under the sealed cover. 11. During the course of argument original record/proceedings of the no confidence motion was called for and was examined by the Court and it was found that on 4th July not a single member turned up to express his opinion for and against the no confidence motion. Consequently the no confidence motion fails. 10.12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have assailed the order and notice issued by the Collector on the ground that all the 8 members who have signed the application are the one third of the total members and given a written notice duly attested by Notary Public showing their intention to make the motion of no confidence against the respondent No. 4 Chairman of Municipal Board Kumher on 16.2002 to the District Collector, Bharatpur and immediately after three days i.e. on 16.2002 petitioners moved another written application duly signed and duly attested by Notary Public to the District Collector, Bharatpur showing their intention to withdraw their earlier application dated 16.2002. 113. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order dated 2 6.2002 and notice dated 2 6.2002, both are illegal and contrary to law and material on record. 113. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order dated 2 6.2002 and notice dated 2 6.2002, both are illegal and contrary to law and material on record. There is legal as well as the factual error in passing the order dated 2 6.2002 because of reason that petitioners moved application dated 16.2002 before any action have been taken on the application dated 16.2002 and any notice have been issued for consideration of the said application. 114. It is given out that there is no bar in the statutory rules of 1974 for refusal of such withdrawal, therefore, in the normal course, application dated 16.2002 should have been allowed and application dated 16.2002 should have been disposed of or consigned to record as withdrawn. 115. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred Rule 3(1) of Rules of 1974. The District Collector is required to convene a meeting for consideration of the motion on the date and time appointed by him, which shall not be earlier than twenty or later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. 116. Petitionersgave a notice under Rule 3 on 16.2002 and District Collector was required to give notice for its consideration on a date, which could not have fixed before 20 days i.e. before 7.2002. It is submitted that before 7.2002 petitioner had every right to withdraw their notice of motion dated 16.2002. 117. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the District Collector has not fixed any date and time on the notice of the petitioners dated 16.2002 and later on issued a notice on the application dated 16.2002 for motion on 26.2002. 118. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that judgment of this High Court reported in 1974 WLN 753 was referred before the District Collector, Bharatpur and the District Collector Bharatpur has wrongly distinguished the law laid down by this High Court in the case reported in 1974 WLN 753 and wrongly relied upon the judgment mentioned in the order dated 2 6.2002. 119. 119. TheDistrict Collector, Bharatpur has also wrongly interpreted the provisions of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, which were in favour of the petitioners and as per the provisions of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, it was clear that in absence of any specific negative provision, it should have been deemed that the applicants have a right to withdraw their notice of motion given by them under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974 before it came for consideration in the meeting. 120. In support of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment Ramhetlal vs. Collector, Sawai Madhopur (1), and gave much emphasis on para No. 5 to 12. (21). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that impugned order as well as notice dated 26.2002 issued by the District Collector, Bharatpur are wholly illegal and against the well settled principles of law as the petitioners have moved an application on 16.2002 but before any action have been taken on the said application and before any notice could have been issued for consideration of the said application the petitioners moved another application on 16.2002 to withdraw their earlier application dated 16.2002. 19.22. There is no bar in statutory rules of 1974 for refusal of such withdrawal. Therefore, in normal course the application dated 16.2002 should have been allowed and application dated 16.2002 should have been disposed of or consigned to record as withdrawn. 20.23. The application of withdrawal which has been moved on behalf of the petitioners has not been allowed by the District Collector, Bharatpur is nothing but to hold that Chairman will have a legal right to continue as Chairman for two years if notice of motion falls. This finding of the District Collector is not only premature but also perverse for the reason that notice of motion in the present case has not even been considered and it has not been fallen down by the majority in the meeting. Therefore, no right has accrued to the non-petitioner Chairman. The order dated 26.2002 passed by the District collector is per se illegal and suffers from malice. 224. Learned Advocate GeneralMr. S.M. Mehtawith Ms. Parinitoo Jain appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 3 and submitted that right to vote is subject to limitations imposed by the statute which can be exercised only in the manner provided by the statute. 224. Learned Advocate GeneralMr. S.M. Mehtawith Ms. Parinitoo Jain appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 3 and submitted that right to vote is subject to limitations imposed by the statute which can be exercised only in the manner provided by the statute. Right to stand and contest an election cannot be challenged on the ground of common law right or fundamental right. .25. Learned Advocate General referred Section 72 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 read with Rule 3(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against the Chairman and Vice Chairman) Rules 1974. He further submits that under Rule 3 of the Rules 1974 complete procedure have been provided for moving a Motion of No Confidence. The process of No Confidence starts under Rule 3(1) by a. written notice of intention to make motion of no confidence in the Chairman or Vice Chairman signed by one third members of the Board together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made shall be sent to the Collector of the District, who shall thereupon convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the Board on the date and at the time appointed by him, which shall not be earlier than twenty or later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. .26. Under Sub-rules 2 to 9 procedure has been laid down. 227. Learned Advocate General further submits that by bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Act and Rule the intention of the legislature is clear that the process of no confidence motion starts as soon as the written notice of intention to make motion of no confidence is moved and there is no provision provided for the withdrawal of such motion after the process for motion of no confidence starts. Thus the application for withdrawal of earlier application has rightly been rejected by the District Collector Bharatpur. 228. In support of his contention Advocate General has referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India & Ors. (2), and referred para No. 9 to 12. He also referred the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (3) and Jyoti Basu vs. Devi Ghosal (4). (29). 228. In support of his contention Advocate General has referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India & Ors. (2), and referred para No. 9 to 12. He also referred the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (3) and Jyoti Basu vs. Devi Ghosal (4). (29). After referring the aforesaid judgments learned Advocate General submits that in view of the settled law on the point, it must be held that the right to vote is subject to the limitations imposed by the statute which can be exercised only in the manner provided by the statute, and that the challenge to any provisions in the statute prescribing the nature of right to elect cannot be made with reference to a fundamental right in the Constitution. The challenge to the validity of Sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Act, is therefore, not available and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 230. Learned Advocate General further distinguished the judgments reported in 1968 RLW 366 and 1874 WLN 753 and submitted that law laid down in the judgments rendered by this Court is not correct law and thus the same are not relevant and need not be followed in view of the observations/decisions made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Advocate General also requests that since there is no specific provision in the statute for withdrawal of the motion once moved, therefore, looking to the importance of the matter, matter may be referred to larger Bench for an authoritative decision on this point. 25.31. On behalf of respondent No. 4 Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar Sr. Advocate and Mr. G.S. Fauzdar Advocate appeared and adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate General, Mr. Dhankar also referred relevant provisions of Act and Rules 1974 and more particularly referred Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974 and submitted that Collector Bharatpur was obligated by law to convene the meeting and to depute some one to preside over the same. Since no other option lies with the Collector, therefore, the action of the Collector, Bharatpur does not suffer from any legal infirmity. He also submitted that the matter is required to be covered purely by expressed statutory provisions and not by motion of common law. There is no expressed provisions under the Municipalities Act to permit the withdrawal of the motion of no confidence. 1.32. He also submitted that the matter is required to be covered purely by expressed statutory provisions and not by motion of common law. There is no expressed provisions under the Municipalities Act to permit the withdrawal of the motion of no confidence. 1.32. Since the Collector, Bharatpur has taken the entire action in form of the Rule 3 of Rule 1974, therefore; the action taken by the Collector, Bharatpur cannot be said to illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 33. In answer to that Collector include Addl. Collector Mr. Dhankar placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Pinki Rajoriya vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (5), wherein this Court has held as under: Intention of the Legislature can be gathered from a bare look at the above provision. The legislature intended that the written notice to make motion of no confidence duly signed by one-third members of the Municipal Board shall be sent to the Collector of the District who shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion. The collector shall sent by registered post a notice of such meeting to every member of power to convene a meeting and communication of notice exclusively to the District Collector and any other person under Sub-rule (3) of the Rule 3 who shall act in the capacity of nominee of the District Collector. For the purpose of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of 1974 Rules, the Words ‘Collector of District’ do mean to include Additional Collector of District and the Additional Collector of District has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of 1974 Rules. In the case on hand admittedly on December 11, 2001 application for a motion of no confidence was presented to the Additional Collector Dausa at Camp Lalsot and the Additional Collector Dausa forthwith passed an order on the application itself directing, to convene the meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the petitioner on January 2, 2002. This act of Additional Collector Dausa was without jurisdiction and even though the District Collector Dausa on December 21, 2001 issued registered notices of the meeting to the members of the Municipal Board yet the illegal act of the Additional Collector would not get validated by it. This act of Additional Collector Dausa was without jurisdiction and even though the District Collector Dausa on December 21, 2001 issued registered notices of the meeting to the members of the Municipal Board yet the illegal act of the Additional Collector would not get validated by it. It will only be deemed that the District Collector Dausa on December 31 (sic 217), 2001 passed conjoint order under Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 directing to convene the meeting on January 2, 2002 for consideration of no-confidence motion against the petitioner. That itself is against the mandate of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 as meeting could not be convened earlier than twenty days. Since the mandatory provision of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of 1974 Rules have been flouted in the instant case, I have no option but to hold that the order dated December 11, 2001 of the Additional Collector Dausa and the entire proceedings of the meeting convened in pursuance there of on January 2, 2002 were illegal. 2.34. During the course of dictation of judgment I perused the judgment referred by the petitioner reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 , AIR 1978 SC 851 , AIR 1982 SC 983 , 1968 RLW 366, 1974 WLN 753. In the case of Ram Chandar vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) this Court has held that persons signing notice may withdraw before meeting convene. Since there is no provision in the Municipal Act for withdrawal of no confidence motion once given and no specific provisions in the statute and in these judgments the Court observed that before the meeting convened the signatory of the no confidence motion can withdraw the notice. 3.35. Respondents has categorically stated that once the notice for no confidence motion is moved the signatories having no power to withdraw the same as the moment the notice moved the no confidence motion is said to be charged. On this point the matter was again listed under the category of “to be mentioned” and the arguments on this point was heard. 4.36. Heard on the issues (1) whether a motion of no confidence submitted against the ChairmanlVide Chairman of a Municipal Council in terms of Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 can be withdrawn after its submission to the Collector concerned? 4.36. Heard on the issues (1) whether a motion of no confidence submitted against the ChairmanlVide Chairman of a Municipal Council in terms of Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 can be withdrawn after its submission to the Collector concerned? .(2) Whether a motion of no confidence submitted to the Collector in terms of the Rules of 1974 can be withdrawn by presenting a withdrawal application to the Addi tional Collector and not the Collector? .(3) Whether after submission of the motion of no confidence against Chairman under the Rules of 1974, makers of the motion become functus-officio? 1.37. Learned Advocate General Mr. S.M. Mehta and Senior Counsel Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar were called upon to address the Court to distinguish the case of Ram Chandra vs. State of Raj. (6), and Ramhetlal vs. Collector, Sawai Madhopur (7), since in these two judgments this Court has held that signatories of the notice of no confidence motion may withdraw the same before meeting convene. 2.38. Learned Advocate General reiterated the arguments which are already advanced on earlier occasions and again placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 1982 SC 983 para 8, AIR 1952 SC 64 para 18, AIR 1954 SC 686 and AIR 1997 SC 2814 Head Note B. 3.39. Whereas Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar heavily placed reliance in the case of Pinky Rajoria vs. State of Rajasthan (8). He submits that since the notice for no confidence motion was submitted to Collector and the withdrawal application of the notice of no confidence motion was made before the Additional Collector and in view of the judgment rendered in Pinky Rajoria’s case the Collector does not include Addl. Collector, therefore the withdrawal application which is submitted by the petitioner, the Addl. Collector is not competent to entertain the same. 40. He further submits that the view taken by this Court in the case of Ram Chandra (Supra) that motion of no confidence is liable to be withdrawn any time before it comes up for consideration in the meeting, this requires re-consideration on the reasons that interpretation would militate against the essence of Section 72(3) of the Act which provides that failure of a motion would debar bringing of a subsequent motion for two years thereafter. If the interpretation accorded in Ramchandra’s case is accepted, then makers of the motion would take chance and finding just before the meeting that there is no hope of success of the motion would conveniently withdraw the same. 1.41. Hefurther submits that interpretation accorded in the case of Ramchandra also goes contrary to the provisions of Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1974, if the meeting is not held for want of corum, the motion of no confidence would be deemed to have lost. Such a situation arise if the interpretation accorded in the case of Ramchandra is not re-considered as in that situation the makers of the motion faced with a sure defeat of the motion would conveniently withdraw the same and thus defeat the underlying spirit of Rule 3(8) of Rules 1974. 2.42. Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar Sr. Advocate also referred Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974. In view of the Rule 3 of Rules the meeting is required to be convened by the Collector not earlier than 20 or not later than 30 days of the receipt of notice. The Collector is required to send by registered post a notice of not less than seven clear days. Since this schedule has been provided under Rule 3 of the rules, a Collector in a given situation issue notice, fix the date of meeting on the very first day of the receipt of the motion. While in another case, Collector may wait for good above 20 days before taking this decision. That being so, no distinction can be drawn on account of the timing of the action taken by the Collector on the ‘motion of no confidence. 3.43. Therefore, the moment the motion of no confidence is received by the Collector, he becomes subject to the time frame given in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974 and is under statutory obligation to conform to the sam 4.44. Learned Advocate General Me S.M. Mehta and learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Dhankar submits that the cases referred by the petitioner Ram Chandar (Supra) and Ramhetlal (Supra) requires reconsideration and it is fit case to refer before the Larger Bench to consider the questions .(1) Whether makers of the motion of no confidence against the ChairmanlVice Chairman of the Municipal Council in the Rules of 1974 have any right to withdraw the same? If so, what is the stage at which such a motion of no confidence can be withdrawn? .(2) Whether the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ramchandra vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) and Ramhetlal vs. Collector, Sawai Madhopur (Supra) requires re-consideration. 45. Having heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, only controversy involves in this matter whether an application with intention to move no confidence motion against the Chairman can be withdrawn by making another application signed by two third members of the total members or not. To resolve this controversy it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions ot Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 and the Rules 1974. First I like to refer Section 72 of Municipalities Act 1959 which reproduced as under: Motion of non-confidence against Chairman-Motion expressing non-confidence in the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman shall be made and considered in the manner prescribed. .(2) No notice of motion under this section shall be made within one year of the assumption of office by a Chairman or a Vice-Chairman. .(3) If a motion under Sub-section (1) is not carried, no notice of a subsequent motion expressing non-confidence in the same Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be made until after the expiration of two years from the date of the meeting in which the motion was considered. Procedure for consideration of no confidence motion has been laid down under Rule 3 of the Rules 1974 which reproduced as under: Procedure etc-(1) A written notice of intention to make motion of no-confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman signed by one-third members of the Board together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made shall be sent to the Collector of the District, who shall thereupon convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the board on the date and at the time appointed by him, which shall not be earlier than twenty or later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. .(2) TheCollector shall send by registered post not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting a notice of such meeting and ot the date and time fixed therefore to every member of the Board. .(2) TheCollector shall send by registered post not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting a notice of such meeting and ot the date and time fixed therefore to every member of the Board. .(3) The Collector or his nominee shall preside at such meeting and if within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting Collector or his nominee is not present or is unabie for any unavoidable cause to preside at the meeting the meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and the time to be fixed and notified to the members. .(4) A meeting convened for the purpose of consideration of the motion of no-confidence under these rules shall not for any reason except stated at Sub-clause (3) be adjourned. (5) As soon as the quorum is present, the Collector or his nominee shall read the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for discussion. No meeting for the consideration of the motion of no- confidence shall be held unless the quorum is present. One-third of the whole numbers shall form the quorum. .(6) Such discussion shall not be adjourned and shall automatically terminate on the expiry of four hours from the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier. .(7) On the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of four hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the Board and the Collector or his nominee shall neither speak on the merit thereof nor vote thereon. .(8) If the motion is the carried by a 2/3 majority of the whole number of members, or if any meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, the motion of no confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been lost. .(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of 2/3 number of whole number of members, the motion shall be deemed to have been passed against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be and such Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office. 1.46. .(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of 2/3 number of whole number of members, the motion shall be deemed to have been passed against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be and such Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office. 1.46. By bare perusal of Section 72 it reveals that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within one year ot the assumption of the office by a Chairman or a Vice-Chairman and second if a motion under Sub-section (1) is not carried, no notice of a subsequent motion expressing non-confidence in the same Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be made until after the expiration of two years. 2.47. In case aforesaid two conditions are fulfilled and the motion is moved after one year from the assumption of the office by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman than a written notice of intention to make motion of no confidence in Chairman or Vice-Chairman signed by one-third members of the Board accompanied with a copy of motion which is proposed to be made can be sent to the Collector of District. 3.48. After receipt of such written notice of intention to make the motion the Collector ot District shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the Board on the date and at the time appointed by him, which shall not be earlier than twenty or later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. 4.49. Collector havefollowed the procedure as laid down under Rule 3. After receipt of a written notice of intention to make the motion along with the resolution, Collector shall have sent the notice to the Chairman by registered post not less than 7 clear days before the date of meeting a notice of such meeting and of the date and time fixed thereupon to every member of the Board against whom the motion has been moved and on the meeting fixed by such notices shall consider the proposed motion of no confidence and the Collector can adjourn the meeting by expressing written reason for adjournment of such meeting. 5.50. 5.50. As per Rule 3 Sub-rule 5 as soon as the quorum is present, the Collector or his nominee shall read the motion for the consideration ot which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for discussion and such consideration cannot be took place until unless the quorum is present. It is expressly made in the provisions of Rule 3 Sub-rule 6 that when the date is fixed and declare it to be open for discussion, such discussion shall not be adjourned and shall automatically terminate on the expiry of four hours from the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier. 6.51. After the debate or expiry ot time of four hours, the motion shall be put to the vote and after such voting if the motion is not carried by 2/3 majority of all present members such motion shall be deemed to have been lost. And if the motion is carried by majority of 2/3 members the motion shall be deemed to have been passed against the Chairman. 7.52. Herein the instant case the controversy is with regard as to whether the petitioners are entitled to seek withdrawal of the application for intention to move the motion against the Chairman or not. Petitioners have given much emphasis to this effect that the application for intention to make the motion against the Chairman was made by the petitioners on 16.2002 before the Collector, Bharatpur and by another application dated 16.2002 the members who have signed the earlier application has moved with the intention to seek permission to withdraw the application dated 16.2002 on the ground that from 16.2002 to till 16.2002 when the petitioner moved another written application duly signed and duly attested by Notary Public to the District Collector showing their intention to withdraw their earlier application dated 16.2002, nothing has been done by the District Collector. 8.53. Since learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Ramhetlal vs. The Collector, Sawai Madhopur (9), I have carefully examined this judgment. In para No. 12 of the judgment this Court has observed that some of the members has signed the notice for motion of no confidence it was undoubtedly open to them to withdraw themselves from that notice, at any date, prior to the Collector having taken any action. In para No. 12 of the judgment this Court has observed that some of the members has signed the notice for motion of no confidence it was undoubtedly open to them to withdraw themselves from that notice, at any date, prior to the Collector having taken any action. This Court has considered passage at page 400 of Parliamentary Practice and held as under: What are contemplated to be the conditions in this passage are unfortunately obtaining today in our country. There are at times signature campaigns and counter campaigns for elective offices and, therefore, though this tendency is to be discouraged, yet it cannot be motion or petition should be able to withdraw his name before any action has been taken thereon. The position would be different if the stage of the notice of motion is passed and the motion has once come before the House which has to deal with that motion, for such a situation May has observed at page 407 of his book “Parliamentary Practice” that “A member who has proposed a motion cannot be allowed to withdraw it except by the leave of the House and that too will be permissible if there is no dissent found against the withdrawal of the motion.” In the present case the stage had not reached when the motion could be said to be before the House. Before that date and anterior to the stage when the Collector convenes the meeting it was certainly open to a member who had signed the notice of motion of no confidence to