ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1.By way of this petition, petitioner has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dated 22.08.2022, passed by Additional Commissioner/respondent No.2 in Revision Case No. 29-A-89/2021-22, whereby respondent No.2 dismissed the revision filed by petitioners challenging the order dated 16.02.2022 allowing the reference filed by respondent No.7 against the proceedings of no confidence motion carried out against her. 2.Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent No.7 was elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Hardi, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh. Mentioning the reasons, a notice was submitted before the Prescribed Authority signed by 13 Panchas including the petitioners out of 17 panchas requesting for bringing no confidence motion against Sarpanch (respondent No.7). After receipt of notice submitted by elected panchas, the Prescribed Authority had proceeded with the same and issued notice for holding no confidence motion on 20.07.2021 fixing date, time and place of meeting. The meeting was scheduled on 31.07.2021. Presiding Officer was appointed and on the scheduled date, no confidence motion was convened. In the proceedings of no confidence motion, all the elected members participated and 14 votes were casted in favour of motion of no confidence and four votes were casted against no confidence motion. The Presiding Officer has forwarded the proceedings mentioning that no confidence motion is carried out against the Sarpanch i.e. respondent No.7. Based on the proceeding forwarded by Presiding Officer to the Prescribed Authority, order dated 02.08.2021 was passed affirming the proceedings of no confidence. The respondent No.7 preferred a reference before the Collector under Section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam, 1993’). The Collector upon considering the pleadings made in the reference/application and submissions had allowed the reference and set-aside the order dated 02.08.2021 of the Prescribed Authority. The order of the Collector in reference was put to challenge in a revision before the Additional Commissioner/ Respondent No.2, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order against which this petition is filed seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Collector has been affirmed. 10.2That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to affirm the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the S.D.O. and also affirm the no confidence motion passed against the respondent No.7/Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Hardi. 10.3That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3.Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the Collector while considering the reference erroneously concluded that in the notice there is no mention of the date of service, it was served through affixing it on the door/wall and it was not served upon respondent No.7 in person, which is erroneous and contrary to the record. Further it is also concluded that notice was not served upon respondent No.7/Sarpanch prior to the time prescribed for service and there is violation of 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’). He contended that the said finding recorded by the Collector in the reference proceedings is also contrary to the record. The notice was dispatched on 20.07.2021 and service of notice is not in dispute. Perusal of the notice annexed along with writ petition would show that copy of service report bears signature of the respondent No.7 and therefore, the ground taken by respondent No.7 in her reference before the Collector that notice was not served in person is per-se wrong. Under the Rules, 1994, there is no requirement of mentioning the date and time of service of notice. Service of notice is governed by the Rule -3 of the Rules, 1994. In support of his contention he referred to the notice placed at Page No.52 of the writ petition. He also contended that after receipt of notice, respondent No.7 participated in the meeting of no confidence motion, she was given opportunity to speak and therefore, there is compliance of all the relevant provisions as per the Rules, 1994. In alternate he submits that even if the notice is served with some delay but before the date of meeting, any prejudice caused by that is not shown by respondent No.7 either before the Collector or in this petition. In alternate he submits that even if the notice is served with some delay but before the date of meeting, any prejudice caused by that is not shown by respondent No.7 either before the Collector or in this petition. Hence, the decision of Collector as also the impugned order passed by the revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner/respondent No.2 is contrary to the records and the relevant provisions under the Rules, 1994. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Gauri Bai Vs. State of C.G. & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) C.G.L.J. 175 (DB), in case of Gopi Lal Sahu Vs. State of C.G., WPC No.3723 of 2019 decided on 18.10.2019 and in case of Chetan Kurre Vs. State of C.G. & Ors and other connected matters decided on 07.04.2017. 4.Learned counsel for State counsel supports the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in the revision as also by the Collector in reference proceeding filed by respondent No.2. 5.Learned counsel for respondent No.7 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and would submit that the notice about convening of no confidence meeting was not received by respondent prior to 7 days of date of meeting as provided under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994. The Collector considered the pleadings, submissions and the record placed before it, rightly concluded that notice was not served in person to respondent No.7, therefore, respondent No.-7 did not get enough time and opportunity to defend herself in the meeting of no confidence. The delay in service of notice caused injustice to respondent No.7 and she was made handicapped to participate in the meeting as she could not make preparation. He next contended that notice of no confidence motion has to be served through Secretary of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat whereas in the case at hand, the notice was served through Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Once there is provision under the Rules, 1994 of service of notice through Secretary of Village Panchayat it ought to have been complied with and violation of the rules with regard to service itself is sufficient to set-aside the entire proceedings of no confidence. Once there is provision under the Rules, 1994 of service of notice through Secretary of Village Panchayat it ought to have been complied with and violation of the rules with regard to service itself is sufficient to set-aside the entire proceedings of no confidence. He contended that under the Rules, 1994, service of notice prior to 7 days of meeting is held mandatory and therefore, word shall has been used under sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. He contended that even at the stage of appeal, the question of law can be raised and in support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of K. Lubna & Ors. Vs. Beevi & Ors., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 524 . 6.I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7.Before proceeding further I find it appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. “21. No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. (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. 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.” 8.The procedure for no confidence motion against the Sarpanch or Up Sarpanch is provided under the Rules, 1994. Rule 3 deals with notice, which is extracted below for ready reference :- “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 Up-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Janpad of 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 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. 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 or 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.Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 envisages that elected members of Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Janpad of Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, shall give a notice thereof to the prescribed authority. Under the proviso it provides that notice shall be signed by not less than one third of the total elected member of panchayat. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 provides that Prescribed Authority after satisfying himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, shall fix the date, time and place for meeting. Further the notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat as the case may be. 10.7 days before the meeting as mandated under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is with respect to ‘despatch’ of notice and it does not talk of service of notice upon elected panchas prior to 7 days of the meeting. The issue with respect to period of 7 days is for dispatch of notice or it also includes the service of notice is considered and decided by the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh In case of Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2000 (4) MPHT 69 , wherein the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed as under :- “8. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2000 (4) MPHT 69 , wherein the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed as under :- “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 ¾th of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than ?rd 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.” 11.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. 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 sub-section 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." 12.Reverting back to the case at hand, copy of the notice is annexed along with writ petition at Page No.52 issued by the S.D.O. (R)-cum-Prescribed Authority (Panchayat), Sarangarh is dated 20.07.2021 meaning thereby the notice is despatched on the date mentioned i.e. 20.07.2021. Thus, there were 7 clear days between the date of despatch and the date of meeting." 12.Reverting back to the case at hand, copy of the notice is annexed along with writ petition at Page No.52 issued by the S.D.O. (R)-cum-Prescribed Authority (Panchayat), Sarangarh is dated 20.07.2021 meaning thereby the notice is despatched on the date mentioned i.e. 20.07.2021. Copy of the notice which is annexed along with writ petition bears the signature of two witnesses mentioning that in their presence the notice was served upon respondent No.7/Sarpanch. It also bears the signature of the respondent No.7. In the aforementioned facts of the case when the copy of the notice which is placed in record in the writ petition which is certified copy obtained from the concerned office or the Court, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.7 that notice was not served upon respondent No.7 in person is not sustainable and the said submission is prima-facie incorrect. 13. This Court to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for respective parties have also compared the signature of respondent No.7 as appearing in the notice with the signature mentioned in the proceedings of meeting of no confidence. The presence of respondent No.7 in the meeting and the signature therein is not disputed. Bare perusal of the signatures in both the documents appear to be one and the same and therefore, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.7 that notice was not served upon respondent No.7 in person, cannot be accepted being contrary to the record. 14.No confidence motion carried out with majority is not disputed, however, the reference submitted by respondent No.7 before the Collector under Section 21 (4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was allowed only on the ground that notice was not served prior to 7 days of the meeting as provided under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and Collector concluded and accepted the grounds raised observing that there is no mention of date and time of service of notice. The said finding recorded by the Collector is per-se wrong and contrary to the scheme of the rules framed under the Rules, 1994. The provision is very clear that the word 7 days before meeting is used for despatch of notice. The said finding recorded by the Collector is per-se wrong and contrary to the scheme of the rules framed under the Rules, 1994. The provision is very clear that the word 7 days before meeting is used for despatch of notice. 15.For the forgoing discussions made herein above in the opinion of this Court, the Collector while exercising power under reference erred in allowing the reference filed by respondent No.7 and further the Additional Commissioner/respondent No.2 erred in dismissing the revision filed by petitioner upholding the order of the Collector. 16.Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) and the order of the Collector dated 16.02.2021 passed in reference are set-aside. The order of Prescribed Authority that no confidence motion against respondent No.7 is carried out with majority is affirmed. 17.The consequence of this order would be that the respondent No.7 shall cease to hold the office of Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Hardi forthwith in view of provisions under Section 21 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993.