RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS present writ petition is filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging the notice of no confidence motion dated 2. 3. 2002 (Annex. 1 ). The meeting of no confidence motion was going to be held on 27. 3. 2002. On 22. 3. 2002 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court issued a show cause notice to the respondents to the effect that why this writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of at admission stage and notices were made returnable on 10. 4. 2002.
(2.) THIS Court also passed an interim order directing the respondents to proceed with the no confidence motion which was going to be held on 27. 3. 2002 and further directed not to declare the result and the result was ordered to be kept under sealed cover. Today the matter comes up on the application filed by the respondents under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim stay order granted by this Court on 22. 3. 2002. Since both the counsel agreed for the final hearing at order stage, matter is heard finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Behror and always devoted himself for the development and welfare of the area of the Panchayat Samiti Behror and with his great efforts got sanctioned various development works and most of them have been undertaken and performed under the supervision of Vikas Adhikari and Zila Parishad as well as the Junior Engineer. The Panchayat Samiti in its last and current meeting had discussed the works performed and undertaken on behalf of Panchayat Samiti and had recorded its satisfaction. To this effect learned counsel for the petitioner referred Annex. 3 by which the meeting presided by the petitioner was held on 6. 3. 2002 and the work which was referred in Annex. 3 has been approved by the majority of members. This Annex. 3 was submitted to show that the Panchayat Samiti had never shown their disagreement towards the works performed by the petitioner. The members of the Panchayat Samiti at no point of time were having any grievance against the petitioner or the manner in which he was performing the works of the Panchyat Samiti. But certain elected persons always create hurdles and always search chances to any how create obstructions in smooth running. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. K. Mathur submits that a notice has been issued by the respondent No. 3 purported to be under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Rules. Along with the notice, a resolution dated 1. 3. 2002 has also been made available which bear resolution No. 2 that the Panchayat Samiti has passed a motion of no confidence against the petitioner and the said meeting was presided over by the Up Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Behror Smt. Beermati.
(3.) MR. R. K. Mathur submits that without adopting due procedure of law, the Up Pradhan had convened the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and got passed a no confidence motion against the petitioner. Therefore, now holding any meeting on 27. 3. 2002 as fixed by the respondent No. 3 has got no value. He further submits that without applying his mind on the resolution dated 1. 3. 2002 respondent No. 3 has issued notice to the petitioner to consider no confidence motion on 27. 3. 2002. He referred Section 37 of the Panchayati Raj Act 1994 wherein the motion of no confidence in Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons the procedure for motion on no confidence Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are to be taken place and read over the Sub-Section 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the Section 37 which is reproduced as under : Motion of Non-confidence in Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons (1) A motion expression want of confidence in the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sec. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one-third of the directly elected members of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the competent authority. (3) The competent authority shall (i) forward a copy of the notice, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the Panchayat in the case of Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, to the Panchayat Samiti, in the case of a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and to the Zila Parishad in the case of a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh; (ii) convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-sec. (i) was delivered to him; and (iii) give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation-In computing the period of thirty days specified in this sub-section, the period during which the convening of a meeting is stayed by a court shall be excluded. (8) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiration of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. On the conclusion of the debate or on the expiration of the said period of two hours, whichever is earlier, the motion shall be put to vote. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provision as stipulated in Sec. 37 has not been followed by the respondents as they already carried out the no confidence motion on 1. 3. 2002 itself. Therefore it was not at all warranted issue a fresh notice calling upon them consider the no confidence motion on 27. 3. 2002. He also submits that allegations which are motivated against the petitioner are false and baseless and this fact is tested by bare perusal of Annex. 3 the meeting which was presided by the petitioner on 6. 3. 2002. It also reveals this fact that resolution dated 1. 3. 2002 was taken in hot haste just to remove the petitioner from the office of Pradhan because the resolution bears the date 1. 3. 2002 but in last signatures of Veermati Yadav, Up-Pradhan who is alleged to have presided over the meeting had signed the same in the date 2. 3. 2002. Such error has been committed to move no confidence, therefore, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner on the ground that provision of Sec. 37 (1) & (2) of the Act are not in true perspective complied with by the respondents for the purpose of initiation of non confidence motion and also failed to appreciate notice dated 23. 2. 2002 which was passed without adopting the procedure of law. ;