ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertinent to case of petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction for respondent authorities to set-aside the notice dated 12.06.2024. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. This writ petiton is filed raising grievance against the issuance of notice by the prescribed authority fixing the date, time and place for holding meeting of the No Confidence Motion against the Petitioner No. 1 (Sarpanch). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat Khairagarh. The elected Panchas of the Village Panchayat Pandadah submitted an application/notice before the prescribed authority on 03.06.2024. Pursuant to the notice received, prescribed authority has fixed date, time and place of the meeting on 21.06.2024 on 11:00 A.M at Village Panchayat Pandadah. He submits that the fixing of the date of meeting on 21.06.2024 is beyond 15 days of the notice submitted by the elected Panchas and therefore, it is in violation of Rule 3 (3) of 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 for brevity referred to as “ The Rules, 1994”) and therefore, the notice is vitiated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. Kumari Diwakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 17 Ors. in WPC No. 3032/2022 in which, this Court has held that the meeting fixed for holding the No Confidence Motion beyond 15 days of the date of notice to be in contravention of the provision under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994. He also pointed out that the case traveled up to the Division Bench of this Court and the order passed in the writ petition was not interferred with. The case of the petitioner is covered with the aforementioned orders passed by this Court. 5. He also pointed out that the case traveled up to the Division Bench of this Court and the order passed in the writ petition was not interferred with. The case of the petitioner is covered with the aforementioned orders passed by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State opposes this submission and would submit that the petitioner has not specifically pleased as to what prejudice is caused, if the meeting is fixed beyond 15 days from the date of submission of the application/notice by the elected Panchas for bringing No Confidence Motion against the Petitioner No. 1 (Sarpanch). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 7. Perusal of the application dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P/2) would show that it is a notice/application submitted by the 18 elected Panchas of Village Panchayat Pandadah before the prescribed authority i.e. the Respondent No. 3 for bringing No Confidence Motion against the Petitioner No. 1 (Sarpanch) for the reasons mentioned therein. The notice dated 03.06.2024 was issued/dispatched by the Respondent No. 3 mentioning and fixing the date, time and place for holding the No Confidence Motion on 12.06.2024. The date fixed for holding the meeting is on 21.06.2024. 8. To appreciate the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, I find it appropriate to extract the relevant provisions under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994 which reads as under: 3 (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. 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. Perusal of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994 would show that the action to be taken by the prescribed authority after receiving notice under sub-rule 1 of Rule 3, the language used under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994 would show that it is in two parts. First, the notice is to be acted upon by fixing the meeting for holding the No Confidence Motion to be within 15 days and second part is for dispatching the notice of the date fixed for meeting, 07 days before the meeting. 10. The sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, (2000) 4 MPHT 69 and the Honb’le High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that though in Rule 3 (3), the word “shall” has been used, it cannot be deemed to be a mandatory provision, but it will have its effect as a directory and it can be interdicted only when the petitioner or the affected party to perform its case by showing that some prejudice has been caused to him or her by not following the rules as provided under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994. 11. Before the Division Bench of this Court also, similar issue came up for consideration of fixing meeting beyond 15 days of the notice in case of Rajkumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in Writ Appeal No. 545/2019 and the Division Bench, considering the decisions in case of Bhulin Dewangan (supra), Dhumadandhin (Smt.) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (1997) 1 Vidhi Bhaskar 49, Muku Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, 1998 (2) MPLJ 661 has upheld the order passed in the writ petition wherein, the writ petition was allowed set-aside the order of Collector in reference with an observation that the petitioner has failed to point out that what prejudice has been caused to him. 12. (1997) 1 Vidhi Bhaskar 49, Muku Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, 1998 (2) MPLJ 661 has upheld the order passed in the writ petition wherein, the writ petition was allowed set-aside the order of Collector in reference with an observation that the petitioner has failed to point out that what prejudice has been caused to him. 12. In the case at hand also, petitioner has not specifically pleaded in so many words as to what prejudice is caused to her in fixing the meeting beyond the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, but the said provision from its language prima facie is for protecting the interest of the Panchas’ who submits the notice/application before the prescribed authority for brining No Confidence Motion against elected Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat. The very provision is for the prescribed authority to act on the notice and not to sit over it arbitrarily. One of the pleadings made is that there is family function, however, the function, if any, is not specifically pleaded. 13. The decision in case of Smt. Kumari Diwakar (supra) relied upon by counsel for petitioner was decided on 15.07.2022. It appears that none of the parties brought to the notice of the Court, judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkumar Sahu (supra) decided on 09.12.2019. 14. Considering the facts of the case as also, the grounds raised in the writ petition and further, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Sahu (supra), I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 15. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petiton is dismissed.