RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the notice for No Confidence Motion dated 11. 8. 2004.
(2.) THIS Court while issuing notice given liberty to the respondents to proceed with No-Confidence Motion which was scheduled to be held on 21. 8. 2004 at 11 am, but the respondents were restrained not to declare the result without seeking permission of this Court. The case of the petitioner is that while serving notice for No-Confidence Motion upon the petitioner, the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. As per Rule 21, for the purposes of No-Confidence Motion, 15 clear days notice should be given. The said rule was later on amended vide notification dated 6. 1. 2000 and instead of 15 clear days, 7 clear days has been added in provision of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. As per direction of this Court, the State has submitted the original record of the Panchayat Samiti. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that resolution to take the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner was passed by the members of Panchayat on 2. 8. 2004. To this effect, notice was issued to all members on 11. 8. 2004 notifying that meeting for No Confidence Motion will be held on 21. 8. 2004 at 11 am. The notices were served upon the members on 18. 8. 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, notices were served upon the members on 18. 8. 2004 which are less than 7 clear day, therefore consideration of No Confidence Motion which was held on 21. 8. 2004 is perse illegal and contrary to Rule 21 of the Rules of 1996.
(3.) IN support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered in case of Ram Khilari vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1), Jiya Lal Banshiwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), Prahlad Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3), and Smt. Kamlesh Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. After placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clear 7 days should be counted from the date on which the service was actually affected not from the date of issuance of such notices. Since the service was made effect on 18. 8. 2004 and meeting for No Confidence Motion was held on 21. 8. 2003 i. e. after three days and therefore, 7 clear days has not been given to the members. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that they have fully complied with the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 21 of the Rules of 1996. Notice for No Confidence Motion was issued on 11. 8. 2004 and it was made clear that meeting was scheduled to be held on 21. 8. 2004. Thus, notice was issued for more than 7 clear days as required under the provisions of law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered in cases of Bhure Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (5), Jai Charan Lal Anal vs. The State of U. P. & Ors. (6), & Prahlad Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra ). ;