1. Respondent No.5 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Sansi whereas petitioner No.1 is the Up-Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat and petitioners 2 to 8 are its Panchas. A motion of no-confidence was passed against respondent No.5 on 21.8.95. Aggrieved by the passing of the no-confidence motion, respondent No.5 preferred revision under Rule 5 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 before the Collector, who by its order dated 21.8.95 set aside the resolution of the no-confidence motion. While doing so, it held that the notice was not despatched by the Secretary to the Panchas according to time fixed under the rules nor separate notice were given to them. This in the opinion of the Collector vitiated the no-confidence motion. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioners have preferred this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is relevant here to state that Rule 3 of the Rules contemplates that the notice of the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion, specifying the date, time and place thereof, shall caused to be despatched by the Prescribed Authority through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to every member of the Panchayat concerned, seven days before the meeting. The Collector has found that the notice was not despatched within the time prescribed under the aforesaid Rules, nor individual notices were given to the Panchas.

3. Shri Kochar appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out anything to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Collector is in any way erroneous. However, he submits that in view of the fact that all the Panchas including the Sarpanch having participated in the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion, no prejudice is caused and notwithstanding the fact that notices were not despatched, seven days before the meeting, the no confidence motion shall not be vitiated on this ground. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Collector committed an error in setting aside the no-confidence motion. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Balkrishan Patel v. Brijendra Patel and others (1985 JLJ 522). My attention has been drawn to the following passage of the said Judgment, which reads as follows:-.

It is settled view of this Court that if there is substantial compliance of this provision, a motion cannot be defeated for technical reasons and it is undemocratic to keep a person on the post when he lost majority. This Court in Bansilal Motitat v. Collector, West Nimar has held that on passing a no--confidence motion against the Sarpanch, the post of Sarpanch is automatically vacated, this effect cannot be arrested even by the operation of the stay order passed by the High Court. Such must be effect when a no-confidence motion is passed in substantial compliance to section 18 of the Act. So, this Court in Motital Ramchandra v. Gram Panchayat, Jamburdisrvar has held that when a no-confidence resolution against Sarpanch carried by overwhelming majority, the case is not fit for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution even if there was irregularity in the service of the notice of the majority."

4. In the aforesaid case, the no-confidence motion was sought to be challenged on the ground that there was no valid service of notice about the meeting on five panchas and in the background of the aforesaid fact, this Court found that no-confidence motion cannot be defeated on technical ground, if there is substantial compliance of the provision. However, in the present case, the ground on which the illegality of the no-confidence motion is challenged is that the notice was not despatched 7 days before the meeting as also the notice was not given to every member of the Panchayat. Accordingly the decision relied on by the learned counsel is clearly distinguishable.

5. Yet another decision, on which the learned counsel for the petit