JUDGMENT : N. Kumar, J. 1. These appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the petition on the ground that when the petitioners are seeking for quashing of the representation, they ought to have impleaded the persons, who made the representation as parties to the writ petition and that having not been done, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The second prayer in the writ petitions is for quashing of the representation. The representation is made on 23.04.2014. The persons who made representation were not impleaded as parties and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that without impleading them, the writ petition is not maintainable. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the main prayer was for quashing of the notice dated 29.04.2014 issued to consider a No-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha. 3. The grievance of the appellants is that a similar meeting had been called for on 05.02.2014 and in the said meeting not a single member of the Panchayath had attended and therefore within one year from that date, no meeting for considering a No-confidence motion could have been called for. Reliance is placed on Section 49 proviso 3 read with Rule 5 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 19.94. 4. The aforesaid provision and the rule make it clear that when once a meeting is called for considering a No-confidence motion and the motion is considered and rejected, again within a period of one year from that day onwards, No-confidence motion cannot be moved. In the instant case, admittedly though a representation was made expressing No-confidence in the Adhyaksha and a meeting was called for, as none of the members of the Panchayath were present in the said meeting, the said motion was not considered and therefore, the bar contained in the aforesaid provision is not applicable. Therefore, the notice issued and the meeting called for is valid and legal. Hence, we do not see any merit in this case. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. 5. Since the main appeals are dismissed, I.A. 2/14 for production of Additional Documents and I.A. 1/14 for stay do not survive for consideration. Hence, both the applications are dismissed.