ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the unserved notice and impugned order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P/1) with all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to function as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sajbahar, Janpad Panchayat-Sejbahar, District-Jashpur (CG) 10.3. To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Sajbahar, Janpad Panchayat-Farsabahar, District-Jashpur. The elected Panchas of the Gram Panchayat have submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority under Rule 3 (1) 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 (hereinafter referred to as “ Rules of 1994”) on 30.06.2022. The Prescribed Authority on the same date has nominated the Presiding Officer for convening meeting of “No Confidence Motion”, fixed the date of meeting and also issued notice to elected Panchas intimating the date and place for convening meeting of No Confidence Motion on 11.07.2022. Notice was not issued in the name of petitioner and when petitioner became aware that proceeding of “No Confidence Motion” is to be initiated against her and for which Prescribed Authority has already issued notice on the application submitted by other elected Panchas, she approached the office of Prescribed Authority asking about the correctness of the fact, upon which, petitioner was served with notice on 06.07.2022 which she has placed on record along with covering memo. He submits that as the notice is dispatched on 06.07.2022 to petitioner fixing date of meeting on 11.07.2022 within 7 days of the date of issuance of notice, therefore, there is violation of provision of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994 and therefore entire proceeding of “No Confidence Motion” initiated by the Prescribed Authority is vitiated. 3. Mr. He submits that as the notice is dispatched on 06.07.2022 to petitioner fixing date of meeting on 11.07.2022 within 7 days of the date of issuance of notice, therefore, there is violation of provision of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994 and therefore entire proceeding of “No Confidence Motion” initiated by the Prescribed Authority is vitiated. 3. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the State submits that submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to dispatch of notice to the petitioner on 06.07.2022 is not correct. The notice to all the elected Panchas based on the application was dispatched by the Prescribed Authority on 30.06.2022 fixing the date of convening of meeting on 11.07.2022. Relying on the decision of Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. 2000 (4) MPHT 69 (FB), he submits that law with regard to notice is seven clear days from the date of dispatch and not from the date of receipt of notice. He contended that notice dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Prescribed Authority to the elected Panchas was served upon most of the elected Panchas. However, when the Secretary of the Village Panchayat went to house of the petitioner with the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 30.06.2022, other family members who were present in the house of the petitioner have not informed about the whereabouts of the petitioner and accordingly notice was returned back on 04.07.2022. Petitioner got knowledge of issuance of notice of “No Confidence Motion” which is also appearing from copy of notice enclosed along with writ petition. If submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted that notice is not addressed to the petitioner, then also petitioner got the notice of proceedings on 06.07.2022 and therefore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was dispatched only on 06.07.2022 is per se wrong in the facts of the case. 4. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervenor submits that it is the intervenors who moved application for bringing “No Confidence Motion” before the Prescribed Authority, however, the elected Panchas who have submitted the application and are necessary party were not arrayed as party respondents and therefore application for intervention may be allowed. 4. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervenor submits that it is the intervenors who moved application for bringing “No Confidence Motion” before the Prescribed Authority, however, the elected Panchas who have submitted the application and are necessary party were not arrayed as party respondents and therefore application for intervention may be allowed. She submitted that earlier notice was issued to all the elected Panchas by the Prescribed Authority on 30.06.2022 and the petitioner for one or the other reason avoided acceptance of notice which is clearly reflecting from the page No.69 which is copy of notice enclosed along with intervention application with endorsement of Panchayat Secretary thereon stating that other family members of the petitioner has not given any information and intimation about the whereabouts of the petitioner. Notice is dated 30.06.2022, dispatched on the same date and therefore fixing date of meeting from the date of dispatch of notice is strictly in accordance with Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994. 5. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for for respondent No.5 submits that that the main contesting parties are respondents No. 1 to 4. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 7. The State counsel has also produced the original record with regard to the proceeding initiated by the Prescribed Authority for convening meeting of “No Confidence Motion”. Original record placed before this Court would show that notice issued for convening meeting of “No Confidence Motion” was dated 30.06.2022 and it was received by some of the Panchas on 01.07.2022. The notice issued in the name of petitioner has been returned unversed with endorsement that Panchayat Secretary visited the house of petitioner on number of occasions, however, family members present therein have not intimated the whereabouts of the petitioner. Notice was prepared on 30.06.2022 and dispatched on the same date. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is appearing that notice was dispatched by the Prescribed Authority on 30.06.2022 fixing the meeting on 11.07.2022. From the date of dispatch of notice and date fixed of meeting, it is apparent that notice was dispatched seven clear days before from the date of fixing of meeting of “No Confidence Motion”. From the date of dispatch of notice and date fixed of meeting, it is apparent that notice was dispatched seven clear days before from the date of fixing of meeting of “No Confidence Motion”. Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994 which is relevant for consideration in the facts of case is extracted below:- “3. Notice. (1). x x x (2). x x x (3). On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time 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 date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched 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.” 9. Under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994, the word used is “dispatched” specifying the date, time and place of meeting. The provision is not of receipt of notice 7 clear days before the meeting. In the case at hand, notices were dispatched before 7 clear days of meeting as is reflecting from the receipt of notice by some Panchas on 01.07.2022 and endorsement of Panchayat Secretary returning notice of petitioner on 04.07.2022 mentioning that notice was affixed on wall of petitioner's house. The writ petition is filed on 05.07.2022 enclosing Annexure P-4, notice of No Confidence meeting to one elected Panch. 10. Respondent -State enclosed copy of notice dispatched in name of petitioner dated 30.06.2022 with an endorsement of Panchayat Secretary that when he went to house of petitioner, family members have not given any information. Endorsement is dated 01.07.2022. 11. Identical issue came up for consideration before Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Bhulin Dewangan (supra) wherein it was observed thus:- “8. Endorsement is dated 01.07.2022. 11. Identical issue came up for consideration before Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Bhulin Dewangan (supra) wherein it was observed thus:- “8. The second part of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 mandates that the prescribed authority after fixing date, time and place of the meeting within the prescribed period not later than 15 days as laid down in the first part of the Rule, shall cause despatch of notice of such meeting to every member of the Panchayat 7 days before the meeting. The said latter part of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1994 Rules is mandatory as intimation of date, time and place of meeting to every member is essential to ensure his presence, if he so desires, in the meeting to be held on such vital issue of passing of no-confidence motion. 9. The legislature has designedly used the expression 'the notice of such meeting specifying date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary' of the Panchayat concerned. The use of the word 'dispatch' appears to be deliberate and it cannot be read as 'receipt' of the notices by the members of the Panchayat. No rule of interpretation permits reading of one word for the other. As is clear from the contents of the rule, the intention appears clear to us. The law intends that the notice of meeting should be sent to the members concerned seven days in advance of the meeting to enable them to participate in the motion of no-confidence. The Rule does not convey any intention that the motion of no-confidence should be taken up only after each and every member of the Panchayat has been actually served with the notice. Had the intention been such, it would have been easy for the legislature to have clearly said so by use of word 'receipt' instead of the word 'dispatch' of notices 7 days in advance of the meeting. Use of word 'dispatch' in the Rule is clearly with a view that merely on non-service of notice of meeting on one or few members, the consideration of motion of no-confidence should not be frustrated, as in any case the passing of it depends on existence of the requisite majority. Use of word 'dispatch' in the Rule is clearly with a view that merely on non-service of notice of meeting on one or few members, the consideration of motion of no-confidence should not be frustrated, as in any case the passing of it depends on existence of the requisite majority. Section 21, however, requires that a valid motion of no-confidence can be passed only on a motion mooted by prescribed one third of total number of elected members and passed by majority of not less than 3/4th of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than 2/3rd of the total number of Panchas. If the motion is validly passed by the requisite majority, mere non-service of notice of meeting on one or more members would not render the passing of no-confidence motion invalid. The latter part of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 uses the words 'shall be caused' indicating clearly that the rule is mandatory and requires due compliance. The literal meaning of word 'dispatch' or 'despatch' is given in New Standard dictionary, Vol. I as under :-- "1. The act of dispatching; a forwarding to some destination: usually with the implication of promptness or celerity; as, as the dispatch of a messenger, or of the mails. 2. A message sent by special means and with haste, as by telegraph; especially, a communication on public matters sent by one official to another. 3. Quick transaction, as of business; speedy execution : the prompt performance and completion of work; expedition; speed; as, he shows ability in dispatch of business; he concluded the negotiations with dispatch." 10. We have, however, to assign both a literal and legal meaning to the word 'dispatch' otherwise it is open to wicked abuse in the hands of concerned authority who may act in collusion with any of the elected members. It is not mere sending or giving of notice of meeting in the manner best suited to the liking of the Secretary of the Panchayat.” 12. This Court in the case of Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPC No.6345 of 2011 decided on 21.10.2021) have also considered the issue with regard to seven clear days notice from the date of meeting convene and held thus : “9. This Court in the case of Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPC No.6345 of 2011 decided on 21.10.2021) have also considered the issue with regard to seven clear days notice from the date of meeting convene and held thus : “9. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 which is in respect of issue of notice provides for dispatch of notice shall be seven days before the date of meeting. Seven days is accordingly not to be counted from the date of receipt of the notice, but from the date of its dispatch. Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 reads as under: "3(3)..The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched 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." 10. In an identical matter, this Court, in Pilaram Dewangan & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others observed as under:- "16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jai Charan Lal Anal v. The State of U.P. & Others ( AIR 1968 SC 5 (v 55 C2) while dealing with the provisions under Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 provides for clear 7 days intervention between date of dispatch of notice and date of meeting observed that "the subsection says that the District Magistrate shall send the notice not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting and the word 'send' shows that the critical date is the date of the despatch of the notice. As the notice was sent on the 17th and the meeting was to be called on the 25th, it is obvious that seven clear days did intervene and there was no breach of this part of the section". The identical facts and provisions of law are involved in the present case. The notice was despatched on 22.8.2006 for the meeting to be held on 30.08.2006. Thus, there were 7 clear days between the date of despatch and the date of meeting." 13. The identical facts and provisions of law are involved in the present case. The notice was despatched on 22.8.2006 for the meeting to be held on 30.08.2006. Thus, there were 7 clear days between the date of despatch and the date of meeting." 13. Considering the specific provision under Rules of 1994, the decision of Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Bhulin Dewangan (supra) as also decision in the case of Smt. Ganga Bai (supra) and facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. Respondent/Sub Divisional Officer will proceed further by fixing the fresh date of meeting based on the application already submitted by the elected Panchas, in accordance with law. 16. Original records are returned to learned counsel for the State.