JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

"a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned notice dated 25.3.2019 (Annex.2) issued by the respondent no.2 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) During pendency of the writ petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioner prejudicial to her interests, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Bhainsroadgarh, Tehsil Rawat Bhata, District Chittorgarh on 07.2.2015 for a period of five years. The election of petitioner was as a consequence of her holding majority of Ward Members while she herself was elected from Ward No.11 amongst 15 Ward Members in Panchayat Samiti, Bhainsroadgarh. Counsel for the petitioner made a limited argument that a notice for no confidence motion was moved against her on 25.3.2019 and as per the receipt endorsed, the notice was received by the petitioner on 02.4.2019. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 the petitioner and the other Members were supposed to be given a notice of not less than seven clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since only six days have elapsed between the petitioner getting notice and the meeting, therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 37(3)(iii) of the Act of 1994 have not been complied with. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn notice of this Court to definition of "Clear days" envisaged by Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which reads as follows :-

Clause (6)-"Clear days" used with reference to the period of notice under any provision of this Act, includes Sundays and other holidays but does not include the date of receipt of such notice by the person to whom it is addressed or the date specified in the notice.

Counsel for the petitioner, thus, tried to make out a case that as from the time of information received of meeting seven clear days are not available, therefore, the notice is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law.

3. This Court passed passed following interim order on 04.4.2019 :-

"Issue notice to respondents, returnable within two weeks. Notices be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner to effect service upon the respondents. In the meanwhile the meeting sought to be convened vide notice dated 25.3.2019 shall remain stayed. List along-with SBCWP No.2991/2019."

4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of Court towards Section 37 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 21 of the Rules of 1996, which are reproduced hereunder :-

"37. Motion of No-confidence in Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons. -

(1) A motion expressing 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 subsections.

(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 anyone of the members signing the notice to the competent authority.

(3) The competent authority shall thereupon-

(i) forward a copy of the notice, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the Panchayat in the case of a 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-section (1) was delivered to him; and

(iii) give to the members a not