Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed assailing proceedings of No Confidence Motion passed by the members of Gram Panchayat Rajwana, District Sawaimadhopur against the petitioner who was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. As per requirement of Sec. 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act 1994) motion of no confidence in Chairperson and Dy. Chairperson has to be carried out in accordance with procedure laid down in sub Sec. (1) Sec. 37 and as contemplated in sub Sec. (2) Sec. 37 of the Act 1994 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 notice to the competent authority. In the instant case written notice of intention of motion of no confidence duly signed by 11 members was submitted to the competent authority and after the procedure provided by law no motion confidence was passed against the petitioner by the elected members in its meeting held on 4.6.2013 (Annx. 5).
(2.) THE main thrust of the counsel for petitioner is that the written notice of intention to make motion of no confidence signed by one Smt. Uma who was not the elected member as such very procedure adopted by the respondent in carrying out the motion is bad in law and as a consequence thereof the meeting of the members held carrying out no confidence motion dt. 4.6.2013 is also bad in law and deserves to be quashed. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that even if Smt. Uma as alleged by him is not considered to be one of the members who has signed the written intention of motion of no confidence is not sufficient compliance as contemplated under sub Sec. (2) Sec. (37) as required under law, it was signed by 1/3rd of the directly elected members of Panchayati Raj Institution and only after it being presented before the competent authority the procedure was followed and meeting was held and the motion of no confidence motion was carried out by the members in its meeting held on 4.6.2013 and in the opinion of this Court infirmity pointed out by the petitioner as alleged in no manner could defeat the procedure provided under Sec. 37(2) of the Act 1994 and this Court does not find any justification to interfere in the procedure adopted for holding meeting of motion of no confidence impugned herein. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.;