The Collector is obligated to send a copy of the motion along with the notices issued for holding a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the Pramukh.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 326 of the Constitution of India, petitioner nitially prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certtorari quashing the notices dated 1. 7. 1997 and 14. 7. 1997 issued to convene the meeting of Kshetriya Samiti, Tandiyana, Tehsil and district Hardoi for consideration of no-confidence motion against the jetitioner. Prayers for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to hold meeting on 3. 8. 1997 and to allow the petitioner to work as Block Pramukh, were also made. Subsequently, by means of amendment allowed on 16. 10. 1997. prayer for quashing the proceedings of the meeting and motion of no confidence passed on 3. 8. 1997 was also added.

( 2 ) IT appears that against the petitioner who happened to be Block Pramukh of Kshetriya Samiti, tandiyana Block, district Hardor as many as 35 members out of 63 gave a notice to the collector, to convene meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against him, along with the copy of no-confidence motion on 4. 7. 1997. on the basis of which the Collector issued notices for holding meeting on 3. 8. 1997. On receipt of the notice from the Collector, petitioner is alleged to have filed an application on 17. 7. 1997 before the Collector for verification of the signature, as according to him. Signatures existing on the notice were forged and fictitious. Thereafter, another application dated 25. 7. 1997 is alleged to have been made by the petitioner to the Collector, requesting to supply him a copy of notice, whereby meeting was convened. Petitioner on 28. 7. 1997 also requested to supply copy of no-confidence motion along with the charges, if any, levelled against him. It is stated that the notices were issued by the Collector in contravention of the provisions of Section 15 of U. P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short the Act ). Therefore, said notices were liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) PETITIONER challenging validity of the said notices filed present petition in this Court on 24. 7. 1997. On the said date, following order was passed by this Court :

"list/put-up on August 11, 1997 to enable the State counsel to file a short counter. In the meantime, it is provided that the meeting convened to consider the no-confidence motion may be held as scheduled but the motion, if carried through against the petitioner, shall not be given effect to till the next date. "

( 4 ) IT was on 3. 8. 1997 that the meeting of Kshetriya Samiti was held and the motion of the no-confidence is alleged to have been carried against the petitioner. Forty-seven members voted in favour of the motion. Seven votes were cast against the motion, white three were declared invalid. However, in view of the order passed by this Court no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner was not given effect to. Petitioner, thereafter. filed amendment application, challenging validity of motion of no-confidence passed and the proceedings of the meeting held on 3. 8. 1997. which was allowed on 16. 10. 1997.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the contesting respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed, denying the facts stated in the writ petition. It was stated that the notice for convening the meeting to consider motion of no-confidence was delivered to the Collector on 5. 7. 1997 and not on 4. 7. 1997. although the same was prepared on 4. 7. 1997. Notice issued by the Collector was served upon the members on 27. 7. 1997. It was on 5. 7. 1997 that the Collector got the signatures of the members verified and the meeting was, thereafter, held within thirty days of the receipt o notice, in accordance with law or 3. 8. 1997, in which motion of no-confidence was carried against the petitioner by 47 out of 57 votes. The writ petition, according to the contesting respondents, was liable tc be dismissed.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that it was obligatory upon the Collector to send co