JUDGMENT 1. One more writ petition by a sitting Adhyaksha, this time the Adhyaksha of Ninjinkodal gram panchayat in Khanapur taluk of Belgaum district, who is shy of facing of a motion of no-confidence moved by her co-members in the panchayat. 2. A notice dated 3-10-2008 [Annexure-b to the writ petition] issued by the first respondent assistant commissioner fixing the date of the meeting to be on 24-10-2008 is questioned in this writ petition on many grounds. 3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri B S Kamate, learned counsel, would submit that the notice itself was received by the petitioner only on 11-10-2008 and the interval between the receipt of notice and the meeting is less than 15 days and therefore violative of the Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha & Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 [for short, the Rules]. The second ground urged is that one of the requirements of the Rules is that at least two members should personally present the requisition before the assistant commissioner and there being no indication as to this procedure in the present case, that itself is violative of the requirement of the Rules. The third ground is that the notice of motion is not accompanied by a copy of the proposed motion and therefore the notice issued by the assistant commissioner even in the absence of the fulfillment of the requirement of Rule 3 is also bad in law and should be quashed. 4. A perusal of the Annexure-A-requisition in form No 1indicates that it is not only a requisition given for the precise purpose of moving a motion of no confidence against an Adhyaksha but also it has been signed by four members and further certified by the secretary of the panchayat that the total number of members of the gram panchayat is five. 5. The requisition in form No 1 in itself is self-contained to indicate as to what is the nature of the motion that is being moved against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and therefore does fulfill the requirement of Rule 3. 6. Though it is urged that there is no indication that two members had presented the same personally before the assistant commissioner, the signatures of four members on it can be taken to be an indication of their presence. 7. 6. Though it is urged that there is no indication that two members had presented the same personally before the assistant commissioner, the signatures of four members on it can be taken to be an indication of their presence. 7. Be that as it may, these are all requirements to satisfy the assistant commissioner to issue a notice in form No 2, which could be presumed to be in existence when once the assistant commissioner proceeds to issue a notice in form No 2 and that he is satisfied with the requirement in respect of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules. 8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that non-compliance with any of these requirements vitiates the entire proceedings, I am not impressed by this submission for the simple reason that this is only a provision to ensure that the assistant commissioner is satisfied about the genuineness and the bona fides of the requisition before he proceeds to issue the notice in form No 2. 9. The ground that the petitioner had not been given 15 days clear interval between the receipt of the notice and the date of the meeting is not a ground which has impressed me for the reason that a person like the petitioner has no right at all in a matter of this nature, which, if at all is a right given to other members who want to move such a motion in terms of Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, the Act]. The main purpose is to enable the members to move a motion of no confidence again an Adhyaksha in whom they do not have any confidence any more. In a matter of this nature, the examination cannot be from the angle of the petitioner, who is the Adhyaksha, as though the Adhyaksha has rights in the matter and that right is in some way violated and infringed by non-compliance with the requirement of the Rules. If such submission is to be accepted, any unwilling Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha can conveniently avoid receipt of notice upto 15 days and scuttle any meeting to take place which will definitely defeat the very purpose of Section 49. If such submission is to be accepted, any unwilling Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha can conveniently avoid receipt of notice upto 15 days and scuttle any meeting to take place which will definitely defeat the very purpose of Section 49. It is for this reason, I do not accept the submission holding that non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 3(2) in allowing 15 days interval to an Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha can vitiate the very notice itself. 10. None of the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is formidiable enough to warrant interference to the extent of quashing the notice fixing a meeting on 24-10-2008. Assuming that there are some technical infirmities regarding noncompliance with the requirement of Rule 3, they are not meritorious enough to interfere with in a matter of this nature particularly in a democratic system, persons in position should retain their position only by retaining the confidence of requisite number of persons and not by resorting to technicalities. 11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.