JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Bansidhar challenging the validity of a motion of no confidence which was declared to have been passed against him. The petition has been contested by 9 Panchas who voted for the no-confidence motion.
(2.) UNDER sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 the strength * of the Panchayat has been determined at one Sarpanch and 12 Panchas. On the date of the no-confidence motion there were only 11 Panchas in the Panchayat, as one Panch named Ramsi had been removed under sec. 17 (2 ). Nine Panchas voted for the motion of no-confidence. Sec. 19 lays down that a motion of no-confidence can only be said to be carried if it is carried by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of members of the Panchayat including the Sarpanch,, but excluding the associate Panchas. If the phrase "total number of members" signifies the total strength of the Panchayat as fixed under sec. 4 then before a motion of no-confidence can be said to have been carried 10 Panchas should vote for it. If on the other hand the phrase means the total number of members holding office for the time being then the motion of no-confidence can be carried by 9 Panchas voting for it. In Gokalchand vs. The Chief Panchayat Officer Rajasthan (l) it was held that the phrase 'total number of Panchas' in sec. 19 (2) of the Panchayat Act signifies the total strength of the Panchayat as fixed under sec. 4 of the Act. According to that decision the motion of no-confidence was not carried against the petitioner. On behalf of the contesting respondents it is argued that the Rajasthan Panchayat Act has since been amended and the above decision is not applicable under the Act as it stands at present. Under sec. 2 (16) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act words and expressions used but not defined in it and defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the latter. The phrase "total number of Panchas" has not been defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. Nor has it been defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. Act. But sec. 2 (16) of that Act lays down that words and expressions used but not defined in it shall have the meanings assigned to them in the law for the time being in force relating to Panchayats, Municipalities and District Boards. Sec. 3 (36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 runs as follows : "'whole number' or 'total number', when used with reference to the members of a board, means the total number of members holding office at the time. " It is argued that the above definition is applicable to the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. The total number of Panchas under sec. 19 (2) would therefore mean the total number of Panchas holding office at the time. In reply it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the phrase "total number of members" has not been defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. It has been defined in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. But that definition is meant only for being used with reference to the members of a board. "board" has been defined under sec. 3 (2) as a municipal board. It is therefore argued that the definition given in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act defining the phrase "total number" cannot be applied to the interpretation of the Panchayat Act. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Sec. 2 (16) of the Panchayat Act lays down that words and expressions used but not defined in it and defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the latter. If the latter Act adopts the definition given in a third Act that definition would apply to the interpretation of the Panchayat Act in my opinion. The expression "total number" has been defined in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act in the following words : - "'total number' when used with reference to the members of a board, means the total number of members holding office at the time. " "board" is defined under sec. 3 (2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act as a municipal board established or deemed to be established under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. This definition has been adopted by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. That means that the definition is adopted with necessary adaptation. The expression "member" has been defined under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. But the phrase "total number of members" has not been defined in that Act. It has been used in that Act e. g. in sec. 39, which deals with motion of no-confidence in Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. The definition of this phrase given in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act would apply to the interpretation of sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act with necessary adaptation. "total number" when used with reference to the members of a Panchayat Samiti would mean the total number of members of the Samiti holding office at the time. The same definition will apply to the interpretation of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act with necessary adaptation. "total number" when used with reference to the members of a Panchayat Samiti would mean the total number of members of the Panchayat holding office at the time. In this view of the matter the motion of non-confidence was carried against the petitioner by the requisite majority. An amendment application was moved on behalf of the petitioner during the course of hearing intimating that the Sub-Divisional Officer had held by his order dated 9. 8. 65 that the seat of Ramsi Panch could not be treated as vacant and seeking to take a ground that Ramsi was holding office on 24. 6. 65 when the no-confidence motion was passed. In my opinion the seat of Ramsi was declared vacant on 10. 6. 65 by the Panchayat and that order was only set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9. 8. 65. Between the two dates it cannot be said that Ramsi was holding office for the purpose of counting the total number of members of the Panchayat for purpose of sec. 19. It is open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass an order under rule 12 (7) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Gen-ral) Rules 1960 directing that the panch concerned whose seat is alleged to have become vacant shall continue to act as if the seat has not become vacant pending final decision. Unless such an order is passed the Panch cannot be treated as holding office In the result, I dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of it. . ;