JUDGMENT :

Puneet Gupta, J.

The petition is taken up for final consideration at this stage with the consent of counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was elected as Chairman of Block Development Council, Block Lamberi, in the year of 2018 and is alleged to have been removed from the said post of Chairman of Block Development Council on 09.07.2020 illegally in pursuance to the No-Confidence Motion moved by the Sarpanches of Block Lamberi Tehsil, Nowshara on 28.06.2020 and 29.06.2020. The petitioner is aggrieved of his removal from the post of Chairman. The petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition has moved an application seeking amendment of the prayer part wherein he has also challenged the minutes of the meeting held on 09.07.2020 wherein the petitioner was allegedly removed from the post of Chairman. The same has been taken on record. The petitioner has challenged his removal on the ground that the meeting was not been convened as per Rule 81 of Panchayati Raj Rules; that there was no cogent proof for moving a motion against the petitioner; that the BDO took the steps in pursuance to the motion moved by the private respondents in violation of Rule 81 of the Rules framed under The Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and the BDO has sought proof of the allegations from the Sarpanches in the meeting which shows that there was not sufficient proof of the allegations by the time the No-Confidence Motion was carried against the petitioner.

3. The official respondents and the private respondents have separately filed the objections to the writ petition. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner has been removed from the post of Chairman in terms of the provisions of The Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (herein after called the Act and the Rules respectively). The petitioner stands immediately removed from the post as envisaged under the Section 30 of the Act. The due procedure was followed by the respondents in process of removal of the petitioner from his post.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has also filed written submissions in support of his contention.

5. The first contention raised by Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the notice for No-Confidence Motion was not issued as per the rules framed under the Act. The perusal of the file reveals that the written notice seeking No-Confidence Motion was given to Secretary of the Council on 28.06.2020 and another copy of the same was addressed to Director Rural Development which was received by Panchayat Inspector Block Lamberi, on 29.06.2020. The other contention raised is that on receiving of the notice by the concerned authority the said authority could not take further steps before ten days of receiving of notice and therefore the steps initiated by the authority on the receiving of the notice within this period is not inconsonance with the Rule 81 and its non-compliance goes to the root of the case and fall out of the same is that the proceedings which later on took place have no validity. The other side has contended that there is no flaw in the meeting notice convened by the competent authority and therefore the petitioner cannot assail the same. The petitioner has cited the decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 1029/2020 decided on 13.07.2020 titled Kamlesh Kumari Vs. Union Territory of J&K in support of his contention. Rule 81 of the Rules which pertains to procedure to be adopted for removal of Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch is applicable for removal of Chairman/Vice Chairman of BDC as is evident from Rule 107 of the rules. As per Rule 81 the Secretary of the Panchayat is required to take steps to convene the special meeting on the motion moved for the removal of the Chairman not earlier than ten days and not later than twenty days from the receipt of the motion. Admittedly, the steps have been taken by the Secre