ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court is aggrieved by an order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Revision No. 361/2005-06 whereby the revision has been allowed and the order of the Collector dated 31.7.2006 wherein no confidence motion conducted against the petitioner which was held illegal has been set-aside. 2. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was declared as elected Sarpanch Gram Panchayat ligna, Tehsil and District Datia on 16.1.2005. A notice was given for calling a meeting of no confidence against the petitioner under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, lanpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke Adhyaksha Tatha Upadhyaksha Ke VirudhaAvishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. It has been further stated that the mandatory notice period of 7 days was not granted while calling the meeting of no confidence motion which was scheduled to be on 10.4.2006. 3. On 10.4.2006 the proceedings took place and the motion was passed by 17 members out of total 21 members. It has been further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner did not receive any notice with other three persons namely Indresh Raja, Smt. Ramkali Kushwah & Smt. Bitti Bai. As they did not receive any notice to attend meeting on 10.4.2006, they have not able to attend the meeting. A final order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 10.4.2006 based upon no confidence motion and the petitioner was ousted from the Office of Sarpanch. It has been further stated in the writ petition that an appeal was preferred under section 24 (4) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the same has been allowed by the Collector, Datia who is the appellate authority, on the ground that provisions of Rules 1994 were not followed. Against the order of the Collector a revision was preferred before the Commissioner and the contention of the petitioner is that the learned Commissioner has erroneously set-aside the order passed by the Collector merely on the ground that majority of the panchs have voted against the petitioner. 4. The matter was argued at length by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondents and also by the learned counsel for intervener. 4. The matter was argued at length by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondents and also by the learned counsel for intervener. It has been stated by the learned counsel for respondents that there is no merit in the writ petition and because majority of the panchs have voted against the petitioner, petitioner is/not entitled to continue on the post of Sarpanch. 5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and carefully going through the documents on record. It is evident from the order of the Collector that the provisions of rules 1994 were not followed while holding a meeting in respect of no confidence motion. Rules of 1994 provided for seven days notice to all panchs, however, in the present case notice was issued only on 6th April, 2006 and the meeting took place on 10.4.2006. The petitioner was not able to participate in the proceedings as stated in the writ petition. This Court in the case of Jugraj Singh Markam v. Dhannulal Maravi and others [ 2004 (1) JLJ 340 ] has held that seven days notice period is a mandatory condition provided under the rules 1994. As the provisions of Rule of 1994 were not followed, the respondent Collector was right in allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 21 (4) of the Act, 1994. Merely because majority of Panchs have voted against the petitioner it does not mean that the provisions of Rules of 1994 which prescribed a law laid down procedure for holding the meeting in respect of no confidence motion can be ignored. The relevant paragraphs as held by this Court in the aforesaid case reads as under: "21. In Mukhu Bai v. State of M.P. (supra) right to speak has been held to be valuable right. Collector on facts has found in the instant case that in addition to the non-dispatch of the notice of seven days before the meeting prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It has been found that at the time of no-confidence resolution, Sarpanch was not allowed reasonable opportunity of explaining the charges against him. On facts, it has been found that respondent No.1 was not allowed to speak and was not informed of the charges and it is also found by the Collector that who moved the motion has not been mentioned in the resolution. On facts, it has been found that respondent No.1 was not allowed to speak and was not informed of the charges and it is also found by the Collector that who moved the motion has not been mentioned in the resolution. In view of the findings recorded by the Collector and considering the fact that notice was not dispatched before seven days, which has also invalidated the meeting, I am not inclined to make interference, in the writ petition. However, as held in Akbar Khan (supra) as there was no proper notice of the meeting it would be open to bring fresh no-confidence motion and bar created under sub-section 3 of section 21 shall not come into play and it would be open to the competent authority to convene the fresh meeting to confidence motion in accordance with law. 22. Resultantly, I find no interference is called for in the order passed by the Collector. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." 6. Keeping in view the fact that proper notice was not given and petitioner was not able to participate in the meeting as stated by the petitioner, this Court is of considered opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the order passed by the Commissioner in revision dated 19.9.2006 is set aside, the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Jigna, Tehsil and District Datia. 7. Accordingly, petition stands allowed. No order as to cost