( 1. ) THE petitioner Shankarlal has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kua, Tehsil Rajpur, District West-Nimar, by a motion of No-confidence passed against htm in a meeting held on 4-6-1973 for that purpose in accordance with section 24 of the Madhya pradesh Panchayat Act, 1962. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges his removal and consequently prays for quashing the resolution dated 4-6-1973 to this effect (Annexture d to the petition ).

( 2. ) THE strength of Panehas of the Gram Panchayat, Kua, was sixteen. However, prior to the notice of motion being moved and passed against the petitioner, one of the Panehas died so that the total number of Panehas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being was reduced to fifteen only when the resolution was passed on 4-6-1973. It is also not in dispute that the notice of motion was given in the prescribed form in accordance with Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats (No-confidence Motion Against sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Rules, 1964, to the Secretary which was received by the Secretary on 27-4-1973. The content of this notice of motion is also not in dispute so that the genuineness of this notice of motion, on the basis of which the meeting was called and held on 4-6-1973, is also not in question. It is, however, a common ground before us, being alleged in the petition and admitted in the return filed by respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, respondent no. 2 having chosen not to file any return, that the Secretary, on receiving the notice of motion under sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh gram Panchayats (No-confidence Motion Against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch)Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), did not sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which and the hour at which the notice had been given to him. Thus non-compliance to this extent of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules is not in dispute. The effect of such non-compliance is the main controversy before us.

( 3. ) SHRI S. L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the resolution passed against the petitioner is invalid for the following reasons:-

(1) The strength of the Gram Panchayat being sixteen, the requisite majority for passing the resolution validly, was a strength of nine instead of eight by which it was passed (2) The voting should have been by secret ballot instead of by show of hands; (3) The principles of natural justice were violated since the petitioner was not given a copy of the notice of motion before the meeting was held so that the petitioner did not know the reasons for the motion before the meeting itself; and (4) Rule 3, sub-rule (2) of the Rules being mandatary, its mere noncompliance in the above manner rendered the resolution invalid.

( 4. ) THE first argument of Shri Garg has no merit and he has very fairly pointed out to us that the point is concluded against him by a decision of this court in Govindkumar v. Gram Panchayat, Pipalgone and other, Misc. Petition No. 120 of 1971 decided on 30-7-1974. No further argument on this point being advanced by Shri Garg, it is not necessary for us to deal with the same at any length. We would, however, add only this much that the expression "by a resolution passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being. . . . . . " occurring in sub-section (1) of section 24 of the madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 leaves no doubt that the actual number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat when the resolution is passed provides the basis for determining majority. In the present case admittedly the actual strength of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat on 4-6-1973 when the resolution was passed was only fifteen. This being so, the resolution passed by eight of them was necessarily passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total number of Panchas constituting t