( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of certiorari that the 'no-confidence' motion, passed on 25-10-71 against the petitioner Ramdas be quashed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is this. The Gram Panchayat, Thanra in Block khaniadhana, District Shivpuri, consisted of 15 members. The petitioner was elected as 'up-Sarpanch'. On 5-10-71, a notice (Annexure 1) was issued to the panchas convening a meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 25-10-71 for consideration of the 'no-confidence' motion against the petitioner. On 25-10-71 the meeting was called and commenced at 11 A. M. , but actually it started at 1230 p. M. The motion of 'no-confidence' was passed against the petitioner vide annexure 2, who challenged its validity on the grounds, (i) that the meeting though scheduled to begin at 11 A. M. actually started at 12-30 P. M. ; (ii) the voting by the Ranchas was not by show of hands and thus there was no voting as contemplated by Section 24 of the M. P. Panchayats Act and the Rules framed thereunder; (iii) that the meeting was not attended by Manila Panchas; (iv) that the notice was not given by the Secretary as required by the law and rules; and (v) the signatures of the Panchas who were not present at the time of the meeting were obtained afterwards. Thus the resolution (Annexure 2) of 'no-confidence' is void.

( 3 ) THE respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in their return denied the allegations of the petitioner and contended that nine Panchas including the Sarpanch moved the motion of 'no-confidence' and delivered the notice (Annexure R-l ). They contended that the Secretary convened the meeting by issuing a notice on 4/5-10-71 which was much more before seven clear days of the meeting (Annexure R-3 ). The fifteen Panchas received the notice between 5-10-71 to 7-10-71. In the meeting held on 25/10/71, 13 Panchas including the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch were present. This meeting commenced at 11 A. M. but 3 Panchas and the Upsarpanch ramdas went away. All the Panchas present including the Sarpanch voted unanimously in favour of the 'no-confidence' motion (Annex. R-4 ). On the passing of the motion of 'no-confidence', the Upsarpanch ceased to hold his office with effect from 26-10-71 as per the provisions of Section 24 of the M. P. Panchayats act. They denied that the meeting was held at 12-30 P. M. or that the Panchas who were not present signed the proceedings of the meeting afterwards. They contended that since the motion of 'no-confidence' was passed unanimously, there was no necessity to record the names of the Panchas who voted for and against the resolution. They asserted that no particular mode of voting was prescribed under the Rules and since the Panchas present in number 9 after deliberations unanimously passed the motion of 'no-confidence', its validity could not be questioned on the ground that there was no voting by show of hands. The respondents thus prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the motion of 'no-confidence' having been passed by 9 members of the Panchayat which consisted of 15 members, the meeting and its proceedings were valid and the petitioner could not ask this Court to quash the motion of 'no-confidence'.

( 4 ) THE respondents Nos. 4, 7 and 11 in their return admitted the petitioner's allegations and contended that they were threatened by the Secretary and the sarpanch and therefore, they put their signatures on the proceedings. ( 5 ) WE have heard Shri A. R. Naoker, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri J. P. Shrivastava. Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and all other remaining respondents were not represented. We are of the view that the, petition deserves to be dismissed.

( 6 ) SHRI Naoker, Advocate for the petitioner did not press the following points before us:- (i) that the meeting had commenced at 12-30 P. M. on 25-10-71; (ii) that the notice of 'no-confidence' motion was bad in law; and (iii) that the signatu