SBCWP NO.5590/09. { 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5590/2009. Santosh Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- May 8, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashwani Chobisa for the petitioner. **** BY THE COURT:- Contention of Shri Ashwani Chobisa, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case, no confidence motion was illegally carried out against the petitioner because notice for no confidence motion was given to the Chief Executive Officer on 6/2/2009. Chief Executive Officer in the notice of no confidence motion that was produced before him on 6/2/2009 fixed 9/3/2009 as the date on which it would be considered. Notice was served upon the petitioner on 10/2/2009. It is submitted that as per requirement of Section 37 SBCWP NO.5590/09. { 2 } (3)(ii), the competent authority was required to convene meeting for consideration of the motion at the office of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the day on which the notice under sub-section (1) was delivered to him. Since the meeting for considering no confidence motion was convened on 9/3/2009, it was more than thirty days and therefore it was not permissible. Secondly it was argued that originally Chief Executive Officer passed an order authorising the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhalawar but subsequently vide order dated 6/3/2009, it was changed and Tehsildar was authorised. For that reason, impugned-order of no confidence motion against the petitioner is liable to be set-aside. 2) Upon consideration of the aforesaid arguments and perusal of the documents forming part of the record, I find that in the present case the notice was said to have been delivered to the Chief Executive Officer on 6/2/2009 and meeting was actually convened on 9/3/2009 i.e. on the very next day i.e. following 30th, this cannot be viewed seriously because all 8 members SBCWP NO.5590/09. { 3 } voted against the petitioner unanimously. Sub- section (4) of Section 37 provides that if the competent authority does not preside at such meeting, any officer nominated by him shall preside. Merely because initially Chief Executive Officer had nominated Additional Chief Executive Officer and subsequently changed that nomination by nominating the Tehsildar, would not make any difference because on both occasions, nomination admittedly was made by the competent authority i.e. the Chief Executive Officer. I therefore do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil