- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 23. 7. 1996, annexure 2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sub mitted that the notice of no confidence was not moved by half of the members of Gram Sabha as required by Rule 33-B of U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules and hence he has urged that no meeting of no confidence could be validly held. Learned counsel pointed out that while Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act was amended in 1994 by substitut ing the words 'gram Panchayat' for the words 'gram Sabha', there was no cor responding amendment, to Rule 33-B of the Rules. However, Section 113 (2) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as amended by the U. P. Act No. 9 of 1994 provides as follows:- "on and from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1994, any reference to the "gaon Sabha" or Gaon Panchayat" in any rules, regula tions, bye-laws, statutory instruments or any other law for the time being in force or in any document or proceedings shall be construed a reference to the 'gram Panchayat. " In view of this amendment, the words 'gram Sabha' in Rule 33-B should be deemed to be amended as 'gram Panchayat". Hence, now, half of the mem bers of the Gram Panchayat may sign the notice of no confidence and it is not neces sary that half of the members of the Gram Sabha must sign it. Hence there is no force in submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then urged that in view of Section 14 (3) of the Act the meeting of no confidence cannot be held. Section 14 (3) of the Act states as follows:- 14 (3 ). "if the motion is not taken up for want of quorum or fails for lack of requisite majority at the meeting. No subsequent meeting for the removal of the same Pradhan shall be convened within a year of the date of the previous meeting. " In para 4 of the writ petition it has been stated that respondent No. 1, District Panchayat Raj Officer by order dated 19. 7,96 had rejected the vote of no con fidence. Thus, this is not a case where the motion of no confidence failed for want of quorum or for lack of majority in the meet ing. Hence Section 14 (3) will not apply. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;