M. Ramachandran, J.

Nine members of the Erumely Grama Panchayat have filed this Writ Petition, inter alia praying that Ext.Pl proceedings are to be quashed. Ext.Pl series have been issued by the Secretary to the Kanjirappilly Block Panchayat, who had been the authorised Officer by the State Election Commission, for presiding over a meeting of a No Confidence motion, and in the course of his above duties. By the notices, the members had been advised that a meeting was to be convened on 7th of August, 2004 for considering the No Confidence motion, which had been received by him against the President and Vice President of the Grama Panchayat. It is not disputed that a meeting had been convened thereafter. The petitioners had refrained from participating in the meeting, on the plea that notice, as issued by the second respondent, was not in consonance with law. The motion as above had been carried and thereafter the members had elected a fresh President and Vice President. The Writ Petition had been filed in the aforesaid context, challenging the proceedings from the stage of notice.

2. The justifiability and validity of the notices that had been served on petitioners 1 to 8, therefore, is substantially the question to be looked into. The petitioners submit that as far as the 9th petitioner was concerned, there is no case for the second respondent that notice had been served on him in person or by post, but the notice is claimed to have been given over to his wife. In respect of petitioners 1 to 8 also, what is claimed is that they had been given notices, in person, on 2nd of August, 2004. The petitioners, therefore, assert that there was no attempt made by the second respondent to comply with the statutory prescriptions, viz., sending the notices by registered post, and they point out that this aspect is not disputed.

3. The resultant position, according to the counsel for the petitioners, is that the steps taken are void. The statute mandatorily prescribed that notice about the No Confidence motion has to be served on the members by registered post and seven clear days were to be there for a discussion of such motion. Mr, Mohan Jacob George further points out that since it is admitted that registered notice had not been sent, there is clear violation of the rules and all consequential steps for convening a meeting and the decision taken and further steps for unseating them are without authority of law. He had, in addition thereto, invited ray attention to S.157(2) and (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which could be extracted herein below, for showing the sequence of the proceedings:

"(2) Written notice in such form as may be prescribed of the intention to move any motion referred to in sub-s.(1) signed by such member of elected members of the Panchayat concerned as shall constitute not less than one third of the sanctioned strength of elected members of that' Panchayat, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved shall be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf.

(4) The officer referred to in sub-s.(2) shall send by registered post to the elected members of the Panchayat concerned notice of not less than seven clear days of any meeting held under this section and the time appointed therefor. Notice regarding this shall be affixed in the Office of the Panchayat".

4. He had adverted to decisions of this Court as also the Supreme Court, reported in Nazeer v. State of Kerala, 2000 (2) KLT 92 Case No.98, Ramchandra v. Govind, AIR 1975 SC 915 -Para 25) for the proposition that when statute prescribed a specific method to be followed, it was obligatory on the functionaries under the statute to conform to the norms that are so laid down and it should not have been done in any other manner. Therefore, the second respondent had little discretion for economising, it is submitted. Hand delivery w