1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of no-confidence motion dated 16.9.2003 passed against the petitioner, solely on the ground that meeting was not convened as per rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, J anpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short), and the resolution passed against the petitioner may be quashed.

2. Short facts for consideration in this petition are that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Hatnapur, District Betul. She was elected in 2000 and was performing her duties as Sarpanch. The petitioner is by caste 'Mehra' and included in other backward class. There are total 15 panchas in Gram Panchayat, Hatnapur, out of which 11 panchas including Up-sarpanch belongs to 'Pawar' caste. On 11.8.2003, 14 panchas of Gram Panchayat, served a notice under rule 3 (1) to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Multai, showing their intention to move no-confidence motion against the petitioner on three grounds. The aforesaid application dated 11.8.2003 is on record as Annexure P-l. The Sub-Divisional Officer, on the same date, appointed Shri R.R. Goyal, Tahsildar, Multai, to convene the meeting of no-confidence motion. Shri R.R. Goyal, Tahsildar, Multai, was appointed as Presiding Officer and date of meeting was fixed as 16.9.2003. On 16.9.2003, meeting was convened and the said no-confidence motion was passed with the support of 12 votes. 2 votes were cast against the motion and one vote was cancelled. The aforesaid facts are clear from the perusal of letter Annexure P-3 sent by Tahsildar, Multai, to the Sub-Divisional Officer. As the no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has filed this petition.

3. The main contention of petitioner is that the aforesaid proceedings for convening the meeting to consider no-confidence motion were contrary to the provision of rule 3 (3) and may be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner has placed his reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mukubai v. State of M.P. and others [1999 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 4 = 1998 (2) MPLJ 661] and contended that the petition may be allowed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for State supported the proceedings and contended that in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P. and others [2000 (2) JLJ 253 = 2000 (4) MPHT 69], this petition has no merit and may be dismissed. The petitioner did not challenge the notice Annexure P-2 immediately on issuance of notice and participated in the proceedings. When the petitioner participated in the proceedings and no-confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner, until and unless some prejudice is shown, petitioner cannot challenge the aforesaid proceedings only on the ground that meeting was called beyond 15 days from the date of notice of no-confidence motion.

5. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for petitioner, rule 3 (3) of the Rules may be seen, which reads as under:

"(3) Notice --

(1) .............................

(2) .............................

(3) On receiving the notice under subrule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to section 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janapad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member