ORDER : 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner who is the President of Bhuvanahalli Gram Panchayat, has sought to challenge the notice issued at Annexure-D, dated 26.12.2018 fixing the date of the meeting as 17.01.2019 to consider the motion of no confidence. The petitioner contends that the complaint of the members at Annexure-A, dated 20.12.2018, is one without allegations and states that the action of filing of the complaint at Annexure-A is in response to action sought to be initiated as regards respondent Nos.4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 with respect to alleged acts of misconduct. 3. The petitioner also states that the requisite notice was not given and though he was served notice on 02.01.2019, meeting has been convened on 17.01.2019. It is also contended that motion of no confidence cannot be moved without allegations. 4. It has been held that where motion of no confidence simpliciter is moved, there is no bar for moving such motion of no confidence without allegations. This Court in W.P.Nos.124125/2019 has clarified this aspect of the matter and held that the right of moving motion of no confidence simpliciter is permissible and has not been taken away by insertion by way of amendment of Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. 5. No other ground is made out assailing the notice at AnnexureA. In light of the fact that the notice at Annexure-A is in compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, no ground as such, is made out for interference with the notice. Though the contention is raised as regards 15 days notice, in view of the fact that notice was received on 02.01.2019 and meeting has been convened on 17.01.2019, no prejudice as such can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. 6. No ground is made out for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Interference on technical violation by way of judicial review is a matter left to the discretion of the Court, we find no reason to interfere with the notice issued at Annexure-D, in the facts of the present case. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Interference on technical violation by way of judicial review is a matter left to the discretion of the Court, we find no reason to interfere with the notice issued at Annexure-D, in the facts of the present case. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. As this order is passed noticing the peculiar facts of the present case, the same would not be treated as a precedent.