Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–Brief facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat Neemrana consists of twelve Members. On 1.3.1997 six members of Gram Panchayat submitted a written notice of intention to move no confidence motion against Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, together with the copy of proposed motion of no confidence before the Chief Executive Officer & Secretary, Zila Parishad, Alwar, respondent No.2, duly signed by them. The Chief Executive Officer & Secretary, Zila Parishad, Alwar, fixed the date 27.3.1997 for consideration of motion of no confidence at 1.00 p.m. at Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Neemrana and also appointed Mr. Onkar Singh Yadav, Senior Deputy Education Officer, Alwar to preside over the said meeting of no confidence. Later on the Presiding Officer was changed and one Mr. Rajash Kumar Gupta, Accounts Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar was appointed to preside over the meeting of no confidence. Ten members attended the meeting of no confidence and out of them nine members voted in favour of the no confidence. The Presiding Officer declared motion of no confidence passed.

(2). The resolution passed of no confidence was challenged in a writ petition alongwith the order of removal from the Office of Sarpanch. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 1.5.1998 dismissed the writ petition against which the present appeal is filed.

(3). The only point raised by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the notice of meeting of no confidence is to be sent by post under certificate of posting not less than fifteen clear days before the date of meeting in form No. II to every directly elected member or panch at his ordinary place of residence and the copy of such notice shall also be put on the Notice Board of such Panchayat Raj Institution as required under Rule 21 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, whereas the notices were not sent to the directly elected members by post under certificate of posting. Thus there is non-compliance of mandatory requirement and the no confidence motion meeting called and the no confidence motion passed in such meeting stand vitiated. If there is a non-compliance of the mandatory requirement, the subsequent act of passing of no confidence would not validate the entire meeting. The non-compliance of the mandatory requirement will not be vitiated by subsequent act of panchas of passing no confidence motion.

(4). Rule 21 (2) of the Rules of 1996 requires that the Chief Executive Officer shall send the notice of meeting of no confidence by post under certificate of posting not less than fifteen clear days before the date of meeting. The intention of the Legislature to frame this Rule of notice to be sent under certificate of posting is to give the information to the Members to enable them to attend the meeting and participate in the proceedings of no confidence and to cast their vote in favour or against the vote of confidence. The notice is required to be sent under certificate of posting so that there is reasonable assurance that the notice has been sent on the correct address of the panchas and that the notice, in fact, is being sent. The issuance of the notice giving fifteen clear days is an essential requirement, whereas manner of service of notice is directory. It is not very much material whether the notice is being sent by registered post or by postal certificate or is being sent by any other manner so long as the notices have been served on the members giving fifteen clear days. So long as the notice is received by the members, non-sending the notice by certificate of posting would not nullify the no confidence motion proceedings on such notice. It is not the case of the appellant that the notices have not been served on the members of the panchayat samiti; the only objection regarding issuance of notices is that they were not issued under certificate of posting. In our opinion, the manner of service is not mandatory requirement and substantial compliance of the same wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document