ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved with the notice dated 18.2.2022 (Annexure P1) issued by Respondent 2/Collector, whereby the notice of motion for no confidence against the Petitioner has been served upon him on 23.2.2022. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the Petitioner is an elected Vice President of Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur. Vide a complaint dated 14.2.2022 (Annexure P2), the Petitioner made a complaint to the Collector, Jagdalpur with regard to irregularities committed by the authorities and officials relating to misappropriation of the funds of 15th Finance Commission. Certain allegations were also made against the Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur. The President Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur in reply given a letter dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure P3) for taking action against the Petitioner pursuant to the complaint made by the Petitioner as stated above. Without passing any resolution for moving a no confidence motion against the Petitioner, the Collector only on the basis of the letter (Annexure P3) written by the President Janpad Panchayat issued the above notice Annexure P1, which is illegal. The provisions of Section 28 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1993’) and Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (henceforth ‘the Rules of 1994’) have not been complied with by the Collector and the Collector issued the notice dated 18.2.2022 (Annexure P1). 3. In their reply, the private Respondents stated that by concealing the material facts the Petitioner has preferred this petition. Virtually, on 17.2.2022 itself, no confidence motion has been moved by the Respondents before the Collector and on the basis of the said, the Collector called a list of elected members of Janpad Panchayat and fixed the case on 18.2.2022 and on 18.2.2022 after going through the list of elected members of Janpad Panchayat which he received from the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, fixed the date, time and place for the meeting of the Janpad Panchayat for conveying no confidence motion and also appointed the prescribed officer for presiding over the meeting. The notices were also issued to every elected members including the Petitioner 7 days before the meeting. The Petitioner and other members were also duly served with the noticed and on 28.2.2022 the no confidence meeting was convened. The notices were also issued to every elected members including the Petitioner 7 days before the meeting. The Petitioner and other members were also duly served with the noticed and on 28.2.2022 the no confidence meeting was convened. In the said meeting, the Petitioner was also present and opportunity of hearing was also afforded to him. In the voting, 16 votes out of 18 have been cast against the Petitioner, i.e., in favour of the no confidence motion. The 2 votes, including the Petitioner’s vote, were against the no confidence motion and the no confidence motion was passed by 16 votes on 28.2.2022 itself. But, concealing all the above facts, the Petitioner has filed this petition and on 28.2.2022 got an interim order from this Court in his favour. 4. In his rejoinder, the Petitioner stated that he has not concealed any material fact from this Court on 28.2.2022. No proper notice of meeting of no confidence motion was given to him by the Collector. The notice was received by him on 23.2.2022. When the notice was served to the Petitioner a copy of the requisition/proposal for no confidence motion was not served to the Petitioner. Therefore, he has no knowledge about the allegations which have been made against him to defend himself properly. Therefore, violation of natural justice has been done. 5. I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material available with due care. 6. The main contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to the Petitioner and copy of the allegations which have been made against him on the basis of which the meeting of no confidence motion was to be conducted has not been supplied to him along with the notice. It was further contention that the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 have been violated. 7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhulin Dewangan vs. State of M.P. 2000 (4) MPHT 69 , wherein considering the aspect of consequence of the non-compliance of the statutory provisions it was held in paragraph 15 as under: “15. The general rule is that non-compliance of mandatory requirement results in nullification of the Act. There are, however, several exceptions to the same. The general rule is that non-compliance of mandatory requirement results in nullification of the Act. There are, however, several exceptions to the same. If certain requirements or conditions are provided by statute in the interest of a particular person, the requirements or conditions, although mandatory, may be waived by him if no public interest are involved and in such a case the act done will be valid even if the requirements or conditions have not been performed. This appears to be the reason for learned C.K. Prasad, J. in Dhumadhandin vs. State of M.P. 1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasver 49 which was followed by R.S. Garg, J. in Mahavir Saket vs. Collector, Rewa, 1998 (1) JLJ 113 for holding that mere non-compliance of first part of the rule in fixing a meeting beyond the prescribed days of the motion of no-confidence would not invalidate the whole proceedings. In case of Dhumadhandin (supra), the Sarpanch did not question the validity of the notice calling the meeting of no-confidence and in fact had taken chance by facing the motion. R.S. Garg, J. in Mahavir Saket (supra) placed reliance on the decision of C.K. Prasad, J. in Dhumadhandin (supra) to up-hold the passing of the no-confidence motion in the adjourned meeting as in the meeting called within the prescribed fifteen days the Presiding Officer was not available. Sub-Section (4) of Section 21 permits reference of a dispute to the Collector by Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom a notice of no confidence motion had been passed. The proceedings of the no-confidence motion or other proceedings under the Act are also assailable in this Court as Constitutional Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As has been construed by us, even though second part of the rule requiring dispatch of notice of the meeting to the member is mandatory, yet in every case of challenge to the proceeding of no-confidence motion either before the Collector or this Court, it would still be open to the Collector or this Court to find out whether in a given case non-compliance of any part of the rule has in fact resulted in any failure of justice or has caused any serious prejudice to any of the parties. The general rule is that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance and the directory one only substantial. The general rule is that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance and the directory one only substantial. But even where the provision is mandatory, every noncompliance of the same need not necessarily result in nullification of the whole action. In a given situation even for non-fulfillment of mandatory requirement, the authority empowered to take a decision may refuse to nullify the action on the ground that no substantial prejudice had been caused to the party affect or to any other party which would have any other substantial interest in the proceeding. This court under Article 227 of the Constitution has also a discretion not to interfere even though a mandatory requirement of law has not been strictly complied with as thereby no serious prejudice or failure of justice has been caused. This is how various Single Bench decisions in which even after finding some infraction of the second part of Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994, the resolution of non-confidence motion passed was not invalidated on the ground that no substantial prejudice thereby was caused to the affect parties. The intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the provisions contained in Section 21 and the Rule 3(3) framed thereunder. The provisions do evince an intention that a meeting of the no-confidence motion be called within a reasonable period of not later than 15 days and every member has to be informed of the same seven days in advance. A notice of no-confidence motion is required to be moved by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of elected members as required by first Proviso to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 and can be lawfully carried by a resolution passed by majority of not less than 3/4th of the Panchas present and voting and such majority has to be more than 2/3rd of the total number of Panchas constituting the Panchayat in accordance with Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. This being the substance of the provisions under the Act and the rules, a mere non-compliance of second part of Sub-Rule (3) would not in every case invalidate the action unless the Collector while deciding the dispute under Sub-Section (4) of Section 21 or this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution comes to the conclusion that such non-compliance has caused serious prejudice to the affected office bearer or has otherwise resulted in failure of justice.” 8. The above view of the Full Bench decision of M.P. High Court is reiterated by this Court in Sahasram Jangde vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2013 (4) CGLJ 526 and later on in some other judgments the Full Bench decision of the M.P. High Court has been followed by this Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid authoritative decision, this Court finds that facts of the instant case are also if not identical, but, almost similar. From perusal of the documents annexed by the private Respondents, it is clear that on 17.2.2022 the application for moving no confidence motion against the Petitioner has been sent to the Collector Jagdalpur. The said application has been signed by the President and 12 members of the Janpad Panchayat. On 18.2.2022 itself, the notice against the Petitioner for making allegations against him has also been sent in the prescribed proforma to the Prescribed Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur. This was also signed by the President and other 13 members of the Janpad Panchayat. On receiving such application on 17.2.2022, Revenue Case No. 1/2021-22 was registered by the Collector and a list of the elected members of the Janpad Panchayat was called from Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur. On 18.2.2022, the date, time and place for conveying the meeting of no confidence motion has been fixed and the notice was ordered to be served upon all the elected members. It also appears that all the elected members were duly served with the notice including the Petitioner. On 28.2.2022, the meeting was convened and the Petitioner was also present in the said meeting. From perusal of the record, it also appears that the opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner and he had also presented his case in the said meeting. On 28.2.2022, the meeting was convened and the Petitioner was also present in the said meeting. From perusal of the record, it also appears that the opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner and he had also presented his case in the said meeting. On voting, 16 votes were cast in favour of the no confidence motion and 2 votes including the Petitioner’s vote were cast against the no confidence motion and the no confidence motion was passed by 16 votes. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner has lost confidence of the members of the Janpad Panchayat and in the light of the judgment referred to above it would not be in the larger public interest to allow the Petitioner to continue on the elected post of Vice President of the Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and the petition is therefore dismissed with the aforesaid observations.