1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3999/2007 Goverdhan Lal vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 10.7.2007 HON'BLE MR.PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.SL Jain,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch on 31.1.2005. The first meeting of the Gram Panchayat took place on 18.2.2005. The motion of no confidence was received by the competent authority who in consequence thereof issued notice for convening the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion. This notice was issued on 12.2.2007. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of sub-section (13) of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 no notice of motion of no confidence could have been issued within two years of the assumption of the office of Chairperson. According to learned counsel for the petitioner since the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat took place on 18.2.2005 and notice was issued on 12.2.2007, therefore, notice was wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also 2 submitted that in view of Section 37(2) and (3) in absence of notice in form (II) alongwith motion of no confidence, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to even issue the notice convening the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in Ramu Ram Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Sri Ganganagar & Ors reported in 2004(1) WLC (Raj) 12. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was elected on 31.1.2005 and as per sub-section (13) of Section 37 of the Act of 1994 no confidence motion could have been moved after the expiry of two years of the assumption of the office by the Chairman. Sub- section (13) nowhere says that computation of period of two years shall be from the date of first meeting of the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice Annex.2 is invalid deserves to be rejected on the ground that the notice dated 12.2.2007 is being challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition in the month of July, 2007 after five months and that too when the meeting took place on 22.2.2007 and the no confidence motion was carried by the more than 2/3rd members of the Panchayat. In such a matter the delay of five months may be fatal. Further it is clear from the copy of the notice, which was 3 addressed to the petitioner himself that a copy of the no confidence alongwith the notice were annexed with the notice Annex.2. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-