The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 are mandatory and require strict adherence, and when a statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot act in contravention of it.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notice dated 3. 9. 2003 (Annexure-4), issued by the respondent No. 2, to convene the meeting for considering no-confidence motion against the petitioner on 22. 9. 2003.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was elected on 8. 3. 2001, as a Kshettra Pramukh of Block, Hasiyan, District Mahamaya Nagar. Members, more than required for the purpose of the said Kshetra Panchayat gave notice to the District Collector (Respondent No. 2) of no-confidence motion against the petitioner on 30. 6. 2003. The notice was issuing to all the members for holding the meeting on 21. 7. 2003. However, for some reason the meeting was not held and has been scheduled to be held on 22. 9. 2003, which is being challenged on the ground that it was mandatory for the Respondent No. 2 to hold the meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, i. e. , from 30. 6. 2003, and as the notice has lapsed, the meeting for no-confidence motion cannot be held under the provisions of U. P. Kshettra panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam, 1961 ).

( 3 ) SHRI Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that under section 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1961, a motion expressing no-confidence in the Pramukh or up-Pramukh is to be considered in a meeting on the date appointed by the Collector, which shall not be later than 30 days from the day on which the notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 was delivered to him, and in the instant case, as the notice had been served upon him on 30. 6. 2003, he cannot be permitted to hold the meeting on 22nd September, 2003 and as the said notice stood lapsed, the impugned notice for holding the meeting on 22. 6. 2003 is liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and shri Vijendra Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 have submitted that there has been delay in holding the meeting as petitioner himself, had asked the District collector to have an investigation regarding the genuineness of the signatures on the notice served upon him, and if there is a lapse on the part of the statutory authorities, that cannot vitiate the proceedings. No prejudice can be shown by the petitioner to have been caused to him and thus, no interference is called for in the matter and petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) RELEVANT provisions of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1961, read as under :

" (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in the such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half of the total number of (Elected members of Kshetra Panchayat) for the time being together with a copy of proposed motion, shall be delivered in person by any one of the member signing the notice to the Collector having jurisdiction over the (Kshetra Panchayat ). (3) The Collector shall thereupon- (i) Convene a meeting on (Kshetra Panchayat) for consideration of Motion at the office of the (Kshetra Panchayat) on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Sub-section (2)was delivered to him. And (ii) Give to the (Elected Members of Kshetra Panchayat) notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. "

( 7 ) A simple and plain reading of the provisions provides that meeting shall not be held later than 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice under Sub-section (2) and it appears that no interpretation is required as language therein is not ambiguous at all.

( 8 ) IN Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu and Ors. , (2001) 7 SCC 71, the Honble Supreme court observed as under :" the Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which w