ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The challenge in this present petition is to the notice and the order dated 06.07.2021 which is carried out under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice- President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1994'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no confidence motion was moved on 06.07.2021 and the SDO has not put on the date on which hour and at which time the notice was given to him and has not acknowledged which is mandatory under sub-rule (2) Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. It is further submitted that sub-rule (3) Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 prescribes that on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice. However, in this case admissibility of the notice was delegated to the CEO and same was done by two auditors, therefore, further as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994, the appointment of the presiding officer is to be done by the State Government to consider the no confidence motion, however, in this case the same has not been carried out. 4. Perused Rule 3 of Rules, 1994. Perusal of Annexure P-1 would show that Annexure P-1 is the first notice which was given to the SDO i.e. the competent authority, it was on 06.07.2021 and on 06.07.2021 the same was received and order-sheet was opened and was sent by the SDO thereby he has acknowledged the same. Simply because the time has not been shown in such notice, it cannot be prima facie said that there is non-compliance of sub-rule (2) Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. Further more, sub-rule (3) Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 prescribes that on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice. Documents would show that after receipt of the notice, the communication was made to enquire as to whether the signature which were appended to the notice were by the Panchas who wanted the no confidence motion to be carried out are genuine or not? The answer having received thereafter having been satisfied, notice has been issued to carry out the no confidence motion on 20.07.2021 which is evident from the order-sheet dated 09.07.2021. The answer having received thereafter having been satisfied, notice has been issued to carry out the no confidence motion on 20.07.2021 which is evident from the order-sheet dated 09.07.2021. The delegation of the ministerial work whether the signature is by the respective Panchas or not has been carried out through auditors. Subsequent thereto the SDO himself accorded his satisfaction pursuant to sub-rule (3) Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. It is not expected that the SDO will personally visit each & every Panch to verify their signature, it is the ministerial work which is carried out by the SDO through other officials. The primary fact is that the satisfaction is arrived is evident from the order dated 09.07.2021, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with such notice of no confidence at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.