F. I. REBELLO, J.:- Both these L.P.A.'s are being disposed of by this common Order as the issue involved is the same. 2. A few common facts may be set out which would be essential for the purpose of disposing the controversy as raised in these Appeals. The appellants in both the Appeals and Respondent Nos.4 to 9 arc the elected members of Village Panchayat. Sawargaon. Tq.-Manwat. Dist. Parbhani. The appellant in L.P.A. No.139 of 2008 was Upa-Sarpanch and the appellant in L.P.A. No.140 of 2008 was the Sarpanch. Respondent Nos.1 and 6 to 9 in both the L.P.A.'s moved a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch on 18/10/2007. The grounds raised were the same. On 23/10/2007 the Tahasildar convened a special meeting for considering the no confidence motion. On the date of the motion, five elected members were present. It appears that both the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch did not participate. The motion. Therefore, was passed as required by two-third majority. 3. The appellants preferred Appeals under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Collector, Parbhani, It was their contention that there ought to have been two separate motions against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. In the instant case the motions were contrary to Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'No Confidence Rules', On hearing the parties, however, the learned Collector was pleased to dismiss the Appeals, Aggrieved by the order, Appeals were preferred to the Divisional Commissioner, In Appeals, the Divisional Commissioner held that considering the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, read with Rule 2 of the No Confidence Rules, the common motion moved was bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Appeals were consequently allowed and the motion of no confidence as passed, was set aside. 4. Against the said order, two Petitions came to be filed before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.2574 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.2743 of 2008. The Appeals were consequently allowed and the motion of no confidence as passed, was set aside. 4. Against the said order, two Petitions came to be filed before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.2574 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.2743 of 2008. By a common Order dated 9th July, 2008 a learned Single Judge of this Court held, that there was no flagrant violation of the mandatory procedure for declaring the no confidence motion to be bad in law, The learned Judge observed that Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch who lost majority ought to have respected the mandate. The learned Judge also observed that he did not find any prejudice caused to the respondents (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) and in view of that set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and allowed the Writ Petitions and declared that no confidence motion was validly passed in the meeting held on 23/10/2007 against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively, It is this order which is the subject matter of these Appeals before this Court. 5. On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel submits that the requirements of Rule 2 of the No Confidence Rules are mandatory. The learned Single Judge, it is submitted, did not address himself to the said aspect and consequently the order is liable to be set aside. To contend the Rules are mandatory, learned counsel placed reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 633. On the other hand, on behalf of the contesting Respondents, the learned counsel contends that the motions were in terms of the No Confidence Rules. There were two separate motions of no confidence against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. Though the motions included both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch when they were submitted, they were accepted separately for Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively, It is submitted that Rule 2 of the No Confidence Rules being procedural Rule, is directory and not mandatory. There has been substantial compliance and no prejudice has been occasioned to the appellants and on this count the Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the provisions of the Village Panchayat Act and No Confidence Rules, Section 35 of the Village Panchayat Act provides the manner in which the motion of no confidence may be moved. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the provisions of the Village Panchayat Act and No Confidence Rules, Section 35 of the Village Panchayat Act provides the manner in which the motion of no confidence may be moved. Firstly it has to be moved by not less than one third of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat against the Sarpanch or the Upa- Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof to the Tahasildar as may be prescribed. Admittedly there is no dispute that more than one-third of the members had moved the motion of no confidence. The second requirement is that the Tahasildar within seven days from the date of receipt by him of the notice under sub-section (1), shall convene a special meeting of the Panchayat for considering the motion of no confidence. At such special meeting, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch against whom the motion of no confidence is moved shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings at the meeting, There is no challenge to the motion in this Court. Subsection (3) then provides that if the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two-third of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat. the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall cease to hold office after seven days from the date on which the motion was carried unless he has resigned earlier or disputed the motion so carried as provided in sub-section (3-B); and thereupon the office held by such Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch shall be deemed to be vacant. Under sub-section (3-B) there is a time limit fixed for Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch to dispute the validity of the motion by referring the dispute to the Collector, who shall decide it, as far as possible, within fifteen days. A person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, can move by way of Appeal to the Commissioner within the time prescribed. It is not necessary to refer to the other provisions. 7. A person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, can move by way of Appeal to the Commissioner within the time prescribed. It is not necessary to refer to the other provisions. 7. Rule 2 of the No Confidence Rules is relevant and reads as under :- 'The members of a panchayat who desire to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch shall give notice thereof in the form appended hereto to the tahsildar of the taluku in which such pane hay at is functioning. Where the members desire to move the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch as well as the Upa-Sarpanch, they shall give two separate notices." 8. From the order of the Collector, and from the facts set out there. it is recorded that five members had preferred a notice of no confidence in the prescribed format to the Tahsildar Manwat on 18/10/2007. The Tahsildar issued a notice of special meeting containing the agenda of the meeting. The Special meeting was to be held on 23/10/2007, that is within seven days as required by the Rules. Notices were served on the members through Talathi saza Sawargaon. The Collector recorded a finding on examining the service copy of the notice that both the appellants were served with the notice personally. The Panchayat consists of seven members and out of them five members cast their votes in favour of the no confidence motion and thus the resolution was passed by way of two-third majority. We may note one aspect that though two notices were given of the motion of no confidence and duly signed by the members in each notice the motion referred to removal of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. On behalf of the contesting Respondents. learned counsel has produced certified copies of the notices for motion of no confidence, which shows that the notices in respect of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch were received independently on 18th and 19th October, 2007 respectively. The meeting was called as can be seen from the writing on the notice, on 23rd October. 2007. With the above we may now consider the Rule. 9. As we have seen. Section 35 of the Village Panchayat Act requires that the motion has to be signed by at least one-third of the members, that has been done in this case. 2007. With the above we may now consider the Rule. 9. As we have seen. Section 35 of the Village Panchayat Act requires that the motion has to be signed by at least one-third of the members, that has been done in this case. The motion has to be in the prescribed format in terms of sub-section 35(1). The notice in fact was given as prescribed. The motion was carried out by two-third of the members. The only defect pointed out is that though two sets of notice for motion were taken out reference was made to motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch in both the motions. The Rule sets out, that where members desire to move motion of no confidence against Sarpanch as well as Upa-Sarpanch, they shall give two separate notices. In the instant case two separate notices were given. The only question is whether reference to Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch in each of the notices, invalidates the motion of no confidence. While construing Rules of procedure, the Courts normally, will read them as directory and not mandatory unless the context otherwise requires. No doubt the Rule uses the expression 'shall give two separate notices'. The requirement of two separate notices is therefore mandatory and cannot be read as directory, as it goes to the very root for considering the notices of motion of no-confidence and issuing notice on each of the motions. Two separate notices were given. In other words, there has been compliance with the requirement of the Rule. If it was the contention that no two separate notices had been given, it would have been possible to hold considering the construction given, that the requirement of giving two separate notices being mandatory and if that had not been complied with, then the calling of the meeting itself being contrary to the statutory provision, the motion passed would have to be held nullity at law. If reference is required, we may refer to the Judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (supra). If reference is required, we may refer to the Judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (supra). There though the issue was of construction of substantive provision of the Act, nonetheless the following observations of the Supreme court would be relevant :- "It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. In our opinion, therefore, what is mandatory, would be giving two separate notices of the motion in the form prescribed against Sarpanch as well as Upa-Sarpanch respectively. 10. to the instant case we are concerned with, what may be read as a defective notices if that expression can be borrowed as in each of the notices of motion, reference was made to no confidence against both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. In our opinion, this will not result in holding that the meeting called for holding the motion of no confidence and subsequent procedure of calling the meeting would be null and void. On the facts here as admitted and findings recorded there were two motions. On the certified copy produced before us, the Tahasildar, has noted as one being for Sarpanch and other for Upa-Sarpanch. In such cases the test would be whether any prejudice was occurred to the appellants. In our opinion Appellants have been unable to show that prejudice was occasioned, either to Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch as the essential requirement of moving the motion has been complied with. As the motions were taken out in the form prescribed, in our opinion the failure to refer to only Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch in the notice of motion of 00confidence cannot be said to be a serious illegality. At the highest it was an irregularity. Once the Tahsildar accepted two different notices relating to Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, the irregularity if any was cured. In our opinion this aspect of the procedure is purely directory. Once it is held that it is a directory. a person aggrieved must show prejudice. Appellants herein have not shown any prejudice. 11. We may reiterate, as we have often stated that one of the essential ingredients of our parliamentary democracy is that the 'will of the majority' must prevail. Once it is held that it is a directory. a person aggrieved must show prejudice. Appellants herein have not shown any prejudice. 11. We may reiterate, as we have often stated that one of the essential ingredients of our parliamentary democracy is that the 'will of the majority' must prevail. This is a basic to our democratic process and republican Constitution, Enjoying the confidence of majority has become an inalienable part of our democratic polity, when, therefore, in terms of the Act and the Rules prescribed, the required number of voters, express their no confidence those in whom the no confidence motion was passed, ought to accept this basic democratic notion and give may, so that the local body would be run by the members in whom majority of the members have confidence, A defeated candidate shall not be allowed the benefit of judicial review when the defect, if any, is of procedure which is directory, For all the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, there is no merit in these Letters Patent Appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeals, nothing survives in the Civil Application Nos.8608 of 2008 and 8609 of 2008 and the same arc also accordingly dismissed, Appeals dismissed.