JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 21.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-the State Government, the present writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order, the respondent No.1 while hearing the revision petition has partly allowed the revision petition. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition is that, the respondent No.7 was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hirmi. The respondents No.8 to 26 were other elected Panchas of the same Gram Panchayat all of whom were elected from Panchayat Election held on 04.02.2020. 3. On 26.02.2021, some of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat Hirmi moved a representation before the respondent No.4 calling for No Confidence Motion to be convened against the respondent No.7-Sarpanch. The respondent No.4 took cognizance on the said representation of the Panchas and proceeded in accordance with provisions of Section 21(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short, the Adhiniyam) and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. 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 (in short, the Rules, 1994). The Prescribed Authority thereafter fixed the date for No Confidence Motion to be held on 15.03.2021. In the course, the respondent No.4 had appointed the Naib Tehsildar, Suhela to act as a Presiding Officer and ordered for issuance of notices to all the parties concerned in this regard. On 15.03.2021 as per Schedule the meeting for No Confidence Motion was held and in the voting that took place, 15 votes were in favour of No Confidence and 5 votes were against the motion. Thus, the No Confidence Motion was passed by 3/4th of the majority. 4. The respondent No.7 is said to be present on the motion. After the motion was passed on 15.03.2021, the respondent No.7 made a Reference before the Collector under Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam. The District Collector upon hearing the Reference vide his order dated 23.12.2021 set aside the order of No Confidence Motion passed against the respondent No.7. 4. The respondent No.7 is said to be present on the motion. After the motion was passed on 15.03.2021, the respondent No.7 made a Reference before the Collector under Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam. The District Collector upon hearing the Reference vide his order dated 23.12.2021 set aside the order of No Confidence Motion passed against the respondent No.7. The order of the Collector was on the ground that the meeting of No Confidence Motion was held beyond a period of 15 days which is otherwise the maximum period within which the meeting of No Confidence Motion has to be convened by the Prescribed Authority as is otherwise envisaged under Rule 3(3) of Rules of 1994. The Panchas who had voted in favour of No Confidence thereafter preferred a Revision Petition before the Commissioner, Raipur Division i.e. the respondent No.2. After hearing the entire facts and circumstances of the Revision and on perusal of the records, the Revisional Authority has also affirmed the order passed by the District Collector vide his order dated 30.03.2022. 5. The petitioner herein who was the incharge Sarpanch after respondent No.7 was removed, immediately preferred a Revision Petition before the respondent No.1 i.e. the State Government challenging the decision passed by the District Collector on 23.12.2021 and that of the Commissioner dated 30.03.2022. The respondent No.1 also has affirmed the order of District Collector as also the Commissioner to the extent of action of No Confidence to be violative of Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1994. Therefore, the respondent No.1 also declined to interfere with the orders passed by the District Collector and which was further affirmed by the Commissioner. However, the respondent No.1 without interfering with the finding of the Collector and the Commissioner reserved the right of the Panchas who had moved No Confidence Motion for independently moving a fresh proceeding for No Confidence Motion and in case if such move is made then the conditions stipulated under Clause 3 of Sub-Section 3 of Section 21 of the Rules 1994 shall not be applicable. With the aforesaid liberty, the Revision was partly allowed and disposed of. It is this order of the Revision Petition i.e. the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, the Revision was partly allowed and disposed of. It is this order of the Revision Petition i.e. the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. The ground of challenge by the petitioner in assailing the three orders was that the orders passed by the authorities would be defeating the democratic process of removing the Sarpanch prescribed under the rules. According to the petitioner once when the Sarpanch has lost his majority in the Gram Panchayat and that too by 3/4th of its majority there could not had been any protection which can be extended to respondent No.7. It was further contention of the petitioner that the ground on which the Collector and the Commissioner had interfered with No Confidence Motion is one which would not have caused any prejudice to respondent No.7 in any manner so as to treat it to be fatal enough for instituting No Confidence Motion. 7. According to the petitioner, the Collector, the Commissioner and the State authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that a person who has lost the majority has no right to remain in office. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court in WPC No.3723 of 2019, Gopilal Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, decided on 18.10.2019. 8. The petitioner also relied upon a decision of this court in WPC No.5147 of 2022 (Majhno Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) decided on 24.11.2022, wherein again this court has held that the proceeding of No Confidence Motion held beyond a period of 15 days cannot be held to be fatal enough in vitiating the No Confidence Motion proceedings. 9. According to the petitioner, in somewhat similar circumstances and grounds this court had affirmed the decision of the State Authority inspite of the fact that the meeting of No Confidence Motion was convened beyond a period of 15 days as is otherwise required under Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1994. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner prayed for allowing of the writ petition and for setting aside of the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner as also the Respondent No.1 dated 23.12.2021, 30.03.2022 and 21.06.2022 respectively. 10. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner prayed for allowing of the writ petition and for setting aside of the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner as also the Respondent No.1 dated 23.12.2021, 30.03.2022 and 21.06.2022 respectively. 10. Per contra, the counsel for respondent No.7 contended that from the perusal of entire records available there is no justifiable reason available for the prescribed authority for holding the No Confidence Motion beyond the period of 15 days. That, in the absence of there being any compelling circumstances that had arisen which led to the meeting to be held beyond 15 days, the action apparently would be violative of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994. Therefore, there is no scope of any interference for the same. According to respondent No.7 once when the statue provides for the authorities to act in a specific manner with specific time schedule prescribed there is no reason why the authorities should not perform strictly in accordance with stipulations provided under the Rules, unless there is any compelling circumstances available, which in the instant case there was none. Thus, the findings given by the District Collector and that by the Commissioner and which has further been affirmed by the respondent No.1 does not warrant any interference. 11. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the two statutory provisions under which No Confidence Motion is convened. Under the Adhiniyam, Section 21 provides for No Confidence Motion to be moved against the Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch. For ready reference Section 21 is being reproduced hereinunder: “21. No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and UpSarpanch. - (1) On a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at. or otherwise to take part in, the proceeding of the meeting. (3) No-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of,- (i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office; (ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires: (iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. (4) If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him, and his decision shall be final.” 12. The Government has also prescribed the Rules under which No Confidence Motion has to be convened i.e. Rule, 1994. Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1994 lays down the specific procedure to be adopted by the prescribed authority. For ready reference Rule 3 of Rules 1994 also is reproduced hereinunder: “3. Notice. The Government has also prescribed the Rules under which No Confidence Motion has to be convened i.e. Rule, 1994. Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1994 lays down the specific procedure to be adopted by the prescribed authority. For ready reference Rule 3 of Rules 1994 also is reproduced hereinunder: “3. Notice. - [(1) Elected members of Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or UpSarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or President or Vice President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, shall give a notice thereof to the prescribed authority in the form appended to these rules : Provided that such notice shall be signed by not less than one-third of the total number of elected members of the concerned Panchayat : Provided further that where the elected members desire to move the motion of no confidence against both the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, President and Vice-President of Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, they shall give separate notice.] (2) The prescribed authority, on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt. (3) On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1), the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Sections 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, lime and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the dale of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting.” 13. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting.” 13. Plain reading of the aforesaid Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Rules 1994 would clearly reflect that upon the representation being received from the majority of the Panchas seeking for No Confidence Motion against a Sarpanch, the prescribed authority has to reach to a subjective satisfaction about the admissibility of the facts and circumstances raised in the representation by the Panchas. Thereafter, upon his being satisfied with the contents of the representation he has to fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for holding No Confidence Motion. Sub-rule (3) clearly prescribes a maximum outer limit of 15 days time for the prescribed authority to hold a meeting of No Confidence Motion. It further prescribes time period for dispatch of notice to the Panchas. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Sub-rule (3) prescribing a specific deadline within which meeting has to be convened, holding of meeting within 15 days becomes mandatory. 14. Now, if for any reason the meeting could not be convened within a period of 15 days time limit, it should be clearly reflected from the ordersheets of the prescribed authority that the circumstances were beyond the control of the prescribed authority for not holding of the meeting within 15 days time. 15. The document enclosed along with the writ petition as also in the reply filed by the respondents there does not seem to be any quarrel so far as adherence to the time schedule provided under Rule 3 of Rules of 1994. All the courts consistently are of the view that under the normal circumstances, the meeting of No Confidence has to be convened within an outer limit of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the Panchas. 16. The expression “Shall”, has been used by the law makers, while enacting the said provision which makes it or rather gives it a mandatory force. 16. The expression “Shall”, has been used by the law makers, while enacting the said provision which makes it or rather gives it a mandatory force. Now if for any reason the meeting could not be convened within a period of 15 days time, it is incumbent upon the prescribed authority to state the reasons which prevented him from holding the meeting within the prescribed period of 15 days time. In the absence of any justification or explanation available in writing in the records or in the notesheets of the prescribed authority showing the compelling circumstances which led to hold meeting beyond a period of 15 days time, the meeting held beyond 15 days time therefore is apparently bad in law and is also in violation of Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994. 17. The judgments referred to by the petitioner in support of his contention also are distinguishable on its facts and circumstances for the reason that there were explanation and justifications available on record which prevented the prescribed authority from holding a meeting within 15 days period. 18. This court in WPC No.3037 of 2022 in Smt. Kumari Diwakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., decided on 15.07.2022 in a matter where No Confidence Motion was convened beyond the outer limit of 15 days, has allowed the writ petition which further went uninterferred before the appellate court in Writ Appeal No.412 of 2022 as well, decided on 28.07.2022. 19. Once when the statue prescribes for a procedure to be followed, the same has to be adhered, as far as possible. When we say “as far as possible” it means that under the normal circumstances the mandate of law has to be strictly abided with. However, in a given circumstances there arises certain compelling circumstances which prevents from complying of the statutory requirement so far as the time limit and the time schedule is concerned and in the given eventuality and under given circumstances if the time schedule gets extended beyond the prescribed period under the statute, the decision under the said circumstances cannot be said to be faulty as has been held by this court also in case of Gopi Lal Sahu (Surpa). In the said exceptional circumstances, the notesheets and records must reflect the reasons which led to the deviation from the time schedule prescribed under law. 20. In the said exceptional circumstances, the notesheets and records must reflect the reasons which led to the deviation from the time schedule prescribed under law. 20. Since in the present factual matrix there is no such reason, explanation and justification available on record, the decision holding No Confidence Motion beyond a period of 15 days is per se bad in law and violative of Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1994. 21. There is a concurrent finding of fact given by three statutory authorities wherein the order of the respondent No.4 of removing the respondent No.7 from the post of Sarpanch is held to be violative of Rule 3 of Rules, 1994. In the light of the statutory provision the findings arrived at by the three appellate and revisional authorities i.e. the District Collector, the Divisional Commissioner and the State Government cannot be said to be dehors the statute, coupled with the fact that there is no justification and explanation available on record of the prescribed authority stating the reasons which prevented him from holding the meeting within 15 days time. 22. The writ petition therefore being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.