Order : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Petitioner is before this Court against the order as contained in Memo No.50, dated 16.01.2025 by the State Election Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal Petition No.01/2024 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and No-Confidence Motion initiated against him, was upheld. 2. Petitioner was elected as ‘Pramukh’ Panchayat Samiti of Garhwa Block in the year 2022 for a term of five years from the date of her assuming office. 3. As per her case on 01.11.2023, respondent no.14 and other private respondents by making false allegations, initiated a No-Confidence Motion and presented in Form-“Ka”, Rule-3 (ii), Part- I of the Jharkhand Panchayat (Procedure for conducting No-Confidence Motion against Up-Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat/Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti / Adhyaksh and Upadhyaksh of Zila Parishad), Rules, 2012 (hereinafter in short ‘Rules 2012’) 4. Sub Divisional Officer vide letter no.100 dated 02.11.2023 and other letters dated 09.11.2023, 11.11.2023, directed Secretary-cum-Block Development Officer to verify the same. After verification, necessary direction to hold No-Confidence Motion was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer on 27.12.2023 and pursuant to it, the No-Confidence Motion was held on 08.01.2024 in which the petitioner was voted out as Pramukh. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that specific procedure has been laid down in Rules, 2012 to hold No-Confidence Motion and in the present case, the elections were held dehors the procedure as laid down. A specific reference is made that under Rule 3(vii), mandates that on receipt of notice, No-Confidence Motion, Presiding Officer will satisfy himself regarding admissibility and on being satisfied, a meeting of Gram Panchayat will be held, the date, time and place of Gram Panchayat will be notified. Further, under Rule 3(viii), the Presiding Officer of the Gram Panchayat will take action to hold a meeting within 15 days of receiving the notice. It is argued that there is a legislative purpose to enact Rule 3(vii) to afford the incumbent, to explain his case before the No-Confidence Motion is taken up. Further, statutory time period of 15 days’ notice was also not observed as the meeting was held much after 30 days. On these scores, the impugned process by which the petitioner was relieved from office, has been challenged. 6. Further, statutory time period of 15 days’ notice was also not observed as the meeting was held much after 30 days. On these scores, the impugned process by which the petitioner was relieved from office, has been challenged. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the finding of the appellate authority that the meeting was held within statutory period, is perverse. Reliance is placed on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. The Collector, District Raigarh & Another , (2012) 4 SCC 407 that duly elected member/Chairman of the Council could not have been removed in such a casual and cavalier manner without giving strict adherence to the safeguards provided under the statute which had to be scrupulously followed. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of State Election Commission that there has been substantial compliance with the Rule and there is no deviation which has caused any serious prejudice to the petitioner. A specific argument is raised that considering very nature of the office of the Pramukh, continuation in office depends upon the confidence enjoyed by the incumbent. 8. Once a notice was received to initiate No-Confidence Motion, the signatures were duly verified and after that the meeting was held. It has not been contended that any fraud or forgery was conducted on behalf of the private respondents which resulted in miscarriage of justice. The delay occurred in holding the meeting due to administrative reasons and it did not inure to disadvantage of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Radhe Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath , (2015) 5 SCC 423 , wherein a writ of certiorari shall lie only against patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction in passing the order. 9. I find force in the advanced on behalf of the respondent state that unless and until there is substantial violation of the Rules in initiating the No-Confidence Motion, the same cannot be set aside. Law is settled that while hearing petition in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by a court or tribunal, does not sit in appeal, but has to see if the order so passed was perverse and without jurisdiction. Only in cases where there is substantial non-compliance with procedure as laid for holding the meeting of no-confidence, any order convening the meeting can be interfered with. 10. Only in cases where there is substantial non-compliance with procedure as laid for holding the meeting of no-confidence, any order convening the meeting can be interfered with. 10. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that petitioner was in any way prejudiced by non-observation of the rule. In this matter, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Writ Petition stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.