1. The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Amkhere. Against him, a motion of no confidence was brought. The total number of the strength of the Gram Panchayat\vas 14 out of which, one person voted against the motion and 12 voted in support of the motion and' one vote was declared invalid, as a result of which, the motion was declared to have been passed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Bhri Satish Shrivastava. He made three fold submission's :-

(1) That 'the procedure as prescribed under Rule 5 (4) of the Madhya 'Pradesh panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), was not complied with as the petitioner was not allowed to speak on the motion.

(2) That no compliance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules was done as no 7 clear days' notice. for meeting of motion of no confidence specifying the time and place was given to the petitioner, i.e. 7 days before the day of the meeting was not given to the petitioner.

(3) That section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereina