ORDER : 1. Petitioner has questioned the validity of Annexure-C notice dated 08.03.2019 by which Assistant Commissioner has fixed the date of No Confidence Motion as 25.03.2019. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is that notice dated 08.03.2019 has been served on the petitioner while affixing the notice on the petitioner’s residence by the Bill Collector and Village Accountant who were deputed by third respondent. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate furnished the records. Perused the same. There is no iota of evidence relating to despatch of the notice to the petitioner till 11.03.2019. Thus, one has to draw inference petitioner has been served notice on 11.03.2019. 3. Learned counsel for respondents-caveators vehemently contended that petitioner has been served and there is a compliance of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short the ‘Rules’). It was also contended that Division Bench of this court in Munirathnamma’s case in Writ Appeal No.1114/2006 (LB) decided on 18.01.2007, it is held that courts cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of violation of any procedural aspect. Further he relied on Gouri Shankar’s case in Writ Petition No.100123/2014 (LBELE) decided on 08.01.2014. In support of the aforesaid contentions the procedural aspect cannot be interfered in particularly Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Perusal of the records it is evident that notice has been served on the petitioner on 11.03.2019 while affixing on his residence. Thus one has to draw inference. There is no despatch of notice from the office of the Assistant Commissioner prior to 11.03.2019 as no records have been produced. The cited decisions in Munirathnamma’s case, she had filed petition after completion of No Confidence Motion while taking the contention that there is violation of Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994. 6. In the case of Gouri Shankar’s despite date of despatch of notice has been taken into consideration wherein it is held that from the date of despatch and receipt of notice by the petitioner therein read with the date of No Confidence Motion, there is no compliance to Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994 to the extent of fifteen clear days time has been given. 7. In view of these facts and circumstances, there is a noncompliance of Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994. 7. In view of these facts and circumstances, there is a noncompliance of Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994. Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994 reads as under : “(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under subrule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting.” Aforesaid Rules is a mandatory for the reason that ‘shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall given to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form-II. Word used is ‘shall’ which means mandatory and not a directory as long as ‘shall’ is read down as may, in such circumstances one can held that even though there are procedural irregularity the same can be ignored. 8. At this stage learned counsel for the respondents-caveators who is appearing for all the contesting respondents and the State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that they have no objection for allowing the petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. Annexure-C dated 08.03.2019 is setaside.