JUDGMENT : 1. The 1st petitioner was the President and the 2nd petitioner the Vice President of Kumbalam Grama Panchayat (herein after called the 'Panchayat'). The Panchayat Committee consists of 18 members. On 24.12.2018, 7 out of the 18 members gave notice to the 4th respondent, intimating their intention to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioners. Exts R4(a) & R4(b) are the notices of intention submitted by the 7 members. Along with the notices of intention, Exts P2 & P2(a), the proposed no-confidence motions were also appended. The notices of intention and the proposed no-confidence motions were received and acknowledged by the 4th respondent under Exts R12(c) & R12(d). Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued Ext P1 notice to the members of the Panchayat informing them about submission of the proposed no-confidence motion and convening of a meeting on 14.01.2019 for consideration of the motions. Later, by Exts P3 & P4, the 4th respondent informed the members that the meeting proposed to be held on 14.1.2019 was advanced to 10.1.2019. In the meeting held on 10.1.2019, 10 out the 18 Panchayat Committee members participated. In the meeting, after the motion of no-confidence was read out by the 4th respondent, the members had a debate and thereafter unanimously voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. The petitioners and 6 other members abstained from the meeting. After voting, the 4th respondent declared the no-confidence motion against the petitioners as carried and reported the consequential casual vacancies of the President and Vice President of the Kumbalam Grama Panchayat to the State Election Commission. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the entire process leading to the disqualification of the petitioners, based on the no-confidence motions mooted by the 7 members. The following grounds are urged in support of the challenge against the process leading up to the carrying of the no-confidence motion. (i) Exts P2 and P2(a) motions are not no-confidence motions, inasmuch as the wordings in Exts P2 & P2(a) expresses no-confidence motion in the Managing Committee and not in the President or the Vice President. As such, there was no valid motion enabling its tabling for discussion or voting under Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. (ii) Section 157(2) mandate the submission of a written notice, in such form as may be prescribed, of the intention to move the motion. As such, there was no valid motion enabling its tabling for discussion or voting under Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. (ii) Section 157(2) mandate the submission of a written notice, in such form as may be prescribed, of the intention to move the motion. Exts R4(a) & R4(b) are not the notices of intention prescribed as per Section 157(2) read with Rule 15 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Conduct of Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995. (iii) Ext P4 notice issued by the 4th respondent informing the members about the meeting for considering the no-confidence motion against the 2nd petitioner is also defective. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that the State Election Commission, in exercise of the power under Sub-section 2 of Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, has issued Order No.384/2011/SEC dtd.6.7.2011 designating the Secretaries of Block Panchayats as the officers authorised to receive the notice of intention to move the motion of no-confidence against the President and Vice-President of the Grama Panchayats within their Block. The Kumbalam Grama Panchayat being within the Palluruthy Block, of which the 4th respondent is the Secretary, the 4th respondent is the officer authorised to receive notice of intention to move no-confidence motion against the petitioners. The notice of intention along with the proposed no-confidence motion was submitted to the 4th respondent directly on 24.12.2018. On receipt of the notice of intention and proposed no-confidence motion, the 4th respondent had convened a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat for consideration of the motion in terms of Section 157(3) of the KPR Act. That, even though initially the meeting was decided to be held on 14.1.2019, it was advanced to 10.1.2019 in order to satisfy the mandate of Section 157(3), which require the meeting to be convened on a date not later than 15 working days from the date on which the notice of intention to move the motion was delivered to the authorised officer. It is submitted that the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion was held on 10.1.2019 as slated, and in the meeting 10 members of the Panchayat Committee participated. As the meeting had the requisite quorum, the motion of no-confidence against the President was read out by the respondent, after which it was declared that the motion was open for debate. As the meeting had the requisite quorum, the motion of no-confidence against the President was read out by the respondent, after which it was declared that the motion was open for debate. After debate, the motion was put to vote and all the 10 members voted in favour of the motion and thereupon the 4th respondent declared the motion of no-confidence as carried. The same procedure was adopted in the case of the Vice President also. It is submitted that since the motions were carried with the support of majority members of the Panchayat, the petitioners ceased to be the President and Vice President of the Panchayat by operation of Sub-section 12 of Section 157. Hence 4th respondent reported the casual vacancies that has arisen in the office of the President and Vice President of Kumbalam Grama Panchayat to the State Election Commission as enjoined by Section 157(2). It is submitted that Section 157 is a Code in itself, as far as the procedure for moving of no-confidence motion against the President and Vice President of a Grama Panchayat is concerned and that after receipt of the notices of intention to move no-confidence motions against the petitioners, the procedure prescribed under Section 157 had been scrupulously followed by the 4th respondent. 4. Respondents 6 to 12 are the Committee members who had submitted the notices of intention to move the no-confidence motions against the petitioners. In their counter affidavit respondents 6 to 12 have stated that the wordings in Exts P2 & P2(a) leave no room for doubt that they are no-confidence motions against the petitioners. It is submitted that the heading of Exts P2 & P2(a) itself indicate that they are no-confidence motions. Further, in Exts P2 & P2(a) it is specifically stated that the petitioners have lost support of the majority in the Panchayat Committee because of their autocratic attitude. It is also demanded that, the petitioners should resign, having lost their majority, in the committee. It is submitted that the KPR Act does not prescribe any format for drawing up a no-confidence motion and the sole consideration should be of the intention of the members, which was amply demonstrated through Exts R12(a) & (b), the notices of intention to move the no-confidence motions. 5. It is submitted that the KPR Act does not prescribe any format for drawing up a no-confidence motion and the sole consideration should be of the intention of the members, which was amply demonstrated through Exts R12(a) & (b), the notices of intention to move the no-confidence motions. 5. Heard Sri.K.Ramkumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned senior counsel for respondents 6 to 12 and Sri.Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission. 6. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the mandate under Section 157 has to be followed strictly and any deviation would render the no-confidence motion illegal. It is submitted that the President and Vice President of the Panchayat being persons elected from among the elected representatives of the people, the procedure for their removal from office require strict compliance. It is contended that the statement in Exts P2 & P2(a) can only be understood as an expression by the movers of the motion that they had lost confidence in the Managing Committee and not the President/Vice-President. It is contended that by no stretch of imagination can Exts P2 & P2(a) be termed as no-confidence motions. The learned senior counsel submits that even the notices of intention (Exts P12 (a) & P12(b)), were not in the prescribed format and did not make any mention about the intention to remove the petitioners from the posts of President and Vice-President. Attention is drawn to Sub-sections 1 & 2 of Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which read as follows: 157. Motion of no-confidence-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President of a Panchayat may be moved in accordance with the procedure laid down herein. (2) Written notice in such form as may be prescribed of the intention to move any motion referred to in subsection (1) signed by such number of elected members of the Panchayat concerned as shall constitute not less than one-third of the sanctioned strength of elected members of that Panchayat, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved shall be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the State Election Commission in this behalf. 7. 7. The corresponding rule is Rule 15 of the KPR (Procedure for Conduct of Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 which is extracted hereunder: 15. Motion of no-confidence in the President or the Vice-President--(1) A motion expressing no-confidence in the President or the Vice-President of a Panchayat shall be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 157 of the Act. (2) A notice under sub-section(2) of Section 157 shall be in the form appended to these rules. 8. The appendix to the Rules contain the form of the notice regarding the intention to move no-confidence motion in the President/Vice President of a Village Panchayat. Referring to the above provisions and form, the learned senior counsel contended that as per section 157(2), primary requirement is that of a motion expressing want of confidence in the President or Vice-President, the intention of moving which must be intimated to the authorised officer. The other requirement is delivery in person, of the written notice in such form as may be prescribed, of the intention to move any motion referred to in sub section (1) of Section 157, by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer authorised by the State Election Commission. It is contended that the above two requirements are completely violated insofar as far as the no-confidence motion moved against the petitioners are concerned. It is contended that Exts P2 & P2(a) does not even indicate that the proposal therein is to move no-confidence motions against the President and the Vice-President and on the other hand, Exts P2 & P2(a) contain statements expressing loss of confidence in the Managing Committee. It is contended that Exts R4(a) & R4(b) notices are not in the prescribed form and does not contain the necessary entries and hence the 4th respondent committed an illegality in having convened a meeting for the purpose of considering the proposed no-confidence motion. The learned counsel relies on the well accepted principle followed from Taylor v Taylor (1875 (1) Ch.D 426, 431) onwards, that when the rule prescribes something to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done either in that manner or not at all. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Anitha v Kanjirappally Block Panchayat ( 2004(3) KLT 211 ) and Umaiban v Director of Panchayats ( 2015(1) KLT 204 ). 9. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Anitha v Kanjirappally Block Panchayat ( 2004(3) KLT 211 ) and Umaiban v Director of Panchayats ( 2015(1) KLT 204 ). 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 12 contended that a reading of Exts P2 and P2(a) would show that the movers of the motion had clearly expressed their loss of confidence in the petitioners. It is contended that the intention, as revealed from the motion, is to be considered, rather than the nuances of the language and the short comings in the construction of sentences. It is submitted that when the electorate has lost confidence in the persons manning the post of President or Vice President, it is not befitting for them to object to the motion based on technicalities. The learned senior counsel referred to the decisions in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v Nandlal Khodidas Barot & others (1974)2 SCC 706 ), Jose Augustine & another v State of Kerala and others (AIR 1999 Kerala 293), Thangal v Block Development Officer ( 2007(3) KLT 561 ), Padmini Singha v State of Assam & others ( (2018)10 SCC 561 ) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sheo Shankar Ratanlalji Khameli v LIC Bombay (AIR 1971 Bombay 304) in support of the contentions. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission contended that the procedure prescribed under Rule 157 had been scrupulously followed by the 4th respondent and that the motion having been debated upon and voted in favour unanimously, by more than half of the members of the Panchayat Committee, the motion stood carried and the petitioners ceased to hold office thereafter. For the purpose of considering the issues canvassed, it would be apposite to consider the requirements prescribed in Section 157(2), which are as under: (i) There shall be a "Notice" of intention of move a motion of No-confidence' in the President or Vice President. (ii) The Notice of intention to move the motion shall be in writing. (iii) The Notice of intention to move the motion shall be in the prescribed form. (iv) The Notice of intention to move the motion shall be signed by at least one-third of the sanctioned strength of that Panchayat. (v) Only elected members can be signatories to the Notice of intention to move the motion. (iii) The Notice of intention to move the motion shall be in the prescribed form. (iv) The Notice of intention to move the motion shall be signed by at least one-third of the sanctioned strength of that Panchayat. (v) Only elected members can be signatories to the Notice of intention to move the motion. (vi) The Notice of intention to move the motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the proposed motion. (vii) Any of the signatories to the Notice of intention to move the motion shall deliver the notice of intention to move the motion in person to the officer authorised by the State Election Commission. (viii) The notice of intention to move the motion shall be delivered to the officer authorised by the State Election Commission alone. 11. There cannot be a dispute with respect to the fact that the aforementioned statutory requirements were complied with by the signatories of the no-confidence motion. It is therefore clear that Section 157(2) does not require the no-confidence motion to contain reasons for the alleged loss of confidence. In Babubhai Muljibhai Patel's case (supra), the Apex Court, while considering the requirements of moving a no-confidence motion under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, held that though according to the form prescribed therein, the ground for the motion of no-confidence has to be mentioned in the notice of intention, it does not, however, follow therefrom that the ground must also be specified when a motion of no-confidence is actually passed against a President. Drawing a distinction between a motion of no confidence and a censure motion, it was held that, while it is necessary in the case of a censure motion to set out the ground of charge on which it is based, a motion of no-confidence need not set out a ground of charge. Dilating further on the point, the Apex Court held that there is no legal bar to the passing of a motion of no-confidence against an authority in the absence of any charge of impropriety or lapse on the part of that authority. The essential connotation of a no-confidence motion is that the party against whom such motion is passed has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite majority of members. The essential connotation of a no-confidence motion is that the party against whom such motion is passed has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite majority of members. This declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court leaves no room for further deliberation on the question as to whether the no-confidence motions moved against the petitioner’s are bad for absence of reasons for moving the motion. 12. The question then arises is as to whether Exts P3 and P4 can be perceived as motions of no-confidence against the petitioners. Even though, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have pointed out some discrepancies and short comings in the motions, a reading of Exts P2 and P2(a) would clearly indicate that the movers of the motion had expressed their loss of confidence in the President and the Vice President. As held by this Court in Thangal's case (supra), no-confidence motion is devised for members to oust from power, persons in whom they have lost confidence. At the end of the day, as in most democratic exercises, the whole process boils down to a matter of numbers. This is apparently inevitable and a legislative choice, the wisdom of which or the validity of which the court is not called upon to decide. Whatever be the inadequacy in not furnishing the copy of the resolution, it would appear to be diminished if not eliminated by the process of reading out the motion and then fixing a period of three hours for debate and then throwing it open to voting. 13. Section 157 is a code in itself, as far as the procedure for moving a no-confidence motion is concerned and the requirements therein have to be strictly complied with, as has been held by this Court in Anitha's and Umaiban's cases (supra). In Anitha's case, notice was not served on the members as mandated under Section 157 (4). I t was in that factual background that this Court held the meeting convened to be invalid. In Umaiban's case, the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion was convened at the instance of a member of the Panchayat Committee, who had ceased to be a member consequent to his continued absence in the committee meetings. The Court also found that the meeting was convened by the executive officer of the Panchayat, contrary to the stipulation in Regulation 29 of the Lakshadweep Panchayat's Regulation. The Court also found that the meeting was convened by the executive officer of the Panchayat, contrary to the stipulation in Regulation 29 of the Lakshadweep Panchayat's Regulation. In that contextual situation, this Court found that the meeting was summoned without authority, and hence held it to be invalid. 14. As far as the instant case is concerned, there is no challenge against the authority of the 4th respondent and the petitioners have no case that they have not received the notice convening the meeting within the stipulated time. The challenge is based on the form and contents of the no-confidence motions and the notices. The question is whether minor defects in the form and content of the notice would render the entire exercise of consideration of the no-confidence motion otiose, if the requirements of the Section are otherwise substantially complied with. The alleged deviations in this case are, the notices of intention not being an exact replica of the form provided under Rule 15 of the KPR (Procedure for Conduct of Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, the description of the petitioners as President and Vice-President being absent in the notice of intention and the nd petitioner being wrongly described as the President of Kumbalam Grama Panchayat in Ext P4 notice issued by the 4th respondent. The answer to this question would depend on the fact, as to whether the notice of intention was correctly understood and acted upon by the officer authorised by the Election Commission and whether the members of the Panchayat Committee, on receipt of the notice issued by the authorised officer, understood it to be a notice convening a meeting called for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion moved against the President and Vice-President. Other than the contention that the motion of no-confidence and the notice convening the meeting were not happily worded and were not strictly in accordance with the prescribed form, the petitioners do not have a case that they did not understand the motion to be one expressing loss of confidence and the notice issued by the 4th respondent to be one convening a meeting for considering the no-confidence motion moved against them. In this context, the decision of this Court in Jose Augustine's case (supra) assumes relevance. In this context, the decision of this Court in Jose Augustine's case (supra) assumes relevance. In that decision a learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows: In Ext P1 letter there is sufficient indication to the petitioners that a written notice expressing want of confidence had been given in compliance with S.157(2) of the Act. No further reason is contemplated for expressing no confidence by the movers of the motion. The question of giving copies of notices are not contemplated. An advance clear seven days notice had been given and that motion is going to be discussed in the meeting where the petitioners would have full opportunity to meet the motion. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Provisions of S.157 of the Act is valid. 15. The object of giving written notice of the intention to move a motion of no-confidence is to enable the authorised officer to ascertain as to whether the motion has been signed by at least one-third of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat. The said requirement is of mandatory character. In a case where the notice of intention is not signed by at least one-third of the elected members of the Panchayat, the authorised officer will not get jurisdiction to take cognizance of the notice and to convene a meeting to consider the motion. On the other hand, if the notice of intention is signed by the prescribed number of members and submitted along with the proposed motion and the authorised officer correctly understands it to be a notice of intention to move a motion of no-confidence and initiates further proceedings as per Section 157, the persons against whom the motion is proposed have no cause for complaint. They can oppose the motion and garner support to defeat the motion on the strength of numbers, in the meeting convened to consider the motion. This view is supported by a decision of the Bombay High Court in Ramkrushna Gangaram Rathi and another v Kisan Zingraji Madke and others (AIR 1971 Bombay, 305). The only question that arose for consideration in that case was, whether the requisition for convening a meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President of a Municipal Council need state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. The only question that arose for consideration in that case was, whether the requisition for convening a meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President of a Municipal Council need state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. Answering the question, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held as follows: It will thus appear that the tenure of the office of the President is wholly at the pleasure and the will of the majority of the Councillors and he can stick to that office only so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority. As soon as he loses the confidence of the majority, he is not entitled to continue in his office. It may be that the President is not guilty of any misconduct in the discharge of his duties or is not guilty of any disgraceful conduct. He may be an honest man or a man of integrity and may be very able, competent and efficient in his work, but still there could be honest policy differences between the President and the majority of the Councillors; there might be honest ideological differences between them, in which case the administration would not be smooth and the majority might not be able to carry on their policy or programme if the President were to hold different or opposite views, though honestly. In such cases, it would not be desirable that a person who does not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the Councillors should head the Council and it is for this reason that the Legislature seems to have deliberately framed Section 55 of the Act in the manner it has done by which only the 'will' of the majority has to prevail for passing a resolution that the President shall cease to be the President though no ground or reasons are required to be given in the requisition to move such a resolution. In our view, this has been advisedly, done by the Legislature and we cannot attribute a different meaning to it as is pressed upon us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our view, this has been advisedly, done by the Legislature and we cannot attribute a different meaning to it as is pressed upon us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our view the only requirement of a valid requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution that the President or the Vice President shall cease to be the President or Vice President is the signatures of not less than one-fourth of the total number of Councillors (excluding the co-opted Councillors) and for such requisition to be valid, no grounds or reasons are required to be disclosed for removing the President or the Vice President. 16. The very intention behind forming Local Self Government Institutions is to bring democracy to the rural level. A person who has lost the confidence of the electorate cannot therefore be permitted to defeat the motion on technicalities. Having abstained from the meeting convened for considering the motion against them, it is not open for the petitioners to raise a challenge based on the alleged mistakes in the motion which was considered, debated, voted upon and carried. In Padmini Singha's case (supra) the passing of a no-confidence motion against the President of a Grama Panchayat was opposed by him on the ground that the Block Development Officer, who had convened the meeting for considering the no-confidence motion and had presided in the meeting, was not the authorised officer empowered to do so. Even though the Apex Court found that as per Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat's Act, the meeting had to be convened by the Deputy Commissioner, who, in his absence alone, could authorise a Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over the meeting, it was held that the person against whom the no-confidence motion was moved, having participated in the meeting, cannot raise a challenge after losing the voting process. It was held that such conduct amounts to waiver. The relevant portion of the judgment in Padmini Singha's case reads as follows: From the foregoing, it is quite vivid that the meeting was held to discuss the motion of no-confidence. Respondent 6 who was a beneficiary attended the meeting and voting had taken place. It is well settled in law that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance but there are situations where even if a provision is mandatory, no-compliance would not result in nullification of the act. Respondent 6 who was a beneficiary attended the meeting and voting had taken place. It is well settled in law that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance but there are situations where even if a provision is mandatory, no-compliance would not result in nullification of the act. There are certain exceptions. One such exception is, if a certain requirement or condition is provided in a statute for the benefit or interest of a particular person, the same can be waived by him if no public interest is involved. The ultimate result would be valid even if the requirement or condition is not performed. We are disposed to think that in the obtaining fact situation, no public interest was affected. The BDO presided over the meeting and everyone knew that the meeting was called for passing a resolution either in favour of or against the no-confidence motion. Respondent 6 knowing fully well participated in the meeting and the resolution was passed against her. After losing in the voting process, the assail was made to the procedure of calling the meeting. We are inclined to think, had Respondent 6 not participated in the meeting, the matter would have been absolutely different. Having participated, it has to be held that Respondent 6 had waived the condition precedent. 17. Once all the members, including the person against whom the motion is being moved, are put on notice about the meeting convened to consider the motion, then it is for that person to attend the meeting, participate in the debate and the voting and abide by the decision of the majority. Having failed to attend the meeting without any justifiable reason and the motion having been carried unanimously, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the motion and its consequences based on technicalities. To put it in a nutshell, when pitted against each other, the objection based on form and content should give way to the will of the electorate expressed through the motion of no-confidence, because the will of the electorate reigns supreme, having been tempered and tested on the anvil of democracy. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.