By the Court.—The dispute in the present writ petition arises out of the tabling of a no confidence motion against the petitioner who was elected in 2010 as a Block Pramukh of Block - Kalan, Tehsil Jalalabad, District - Shahjahanpur. A no confidence motion was initiated against the petitioner under a written notice said to have been moved by the respondent private parties in 2012. On the said written notice the District Magistrate proceeded to put all the members to notice as required under Section 15 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. The provision, as it exists, requires that the Collector shall convene the meeting on a date appointed by him to consider the said motion which shall not be later than 30 days from the date on which the notice was delivered to him by the members.

2. The next step to be undertaken by the Collector is to give notice of not less than 15 days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed, to the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. The meeting has to be presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer of the division concerned.

3. The present writ petition was filed alleging that the notice sent by the District Magistrate to the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat was dispatched on 13.8.2012 by registered post, even though the date mentioned in the notice is 9.8.2012. Thus the allegation is that if the notice was dispatched on 13.8.2012 then the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 25.8.2012 falls on the 13th day and consequently 15 days clear notice was not given to the members. The petitioner therefore contends that there is a clear violation of the said mandatory statutory provision, that has been quoted extensively in the writ petition.

4. The petition was allowed to be amended on a prayer made by the petitioner vide order dated 10.9.2013 taking these grounds in the writ petition and also praying for a relief of certiorari to quash the outcome of the meeting that was proposed to be held on 25.8.2012.

5. The following interim order was passed on 24.8.2012 :

“Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3 and Sri Shivam Yadav appearing for caveator respondent No. 4.

The standing counsel on the basis of instructions received, submits that notices were dispatched by the Collector in the period with effect from 13.8.2012 to 16.8.2012. Sri Shashi Nandan, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that notices have also been dispatched upto 21.8.2012.

Admittedly, since the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion is scheduled to be held on 25.8.2012 in the office of Kshetra Panchayat Kalan and 15 days clear notice does not appear to have been given, prima facie a case for grant of interim order is made out.

Issue notice to respondent No. 5 to 54.

As prayed, two weeks time is granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter.

In the meantime, the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion, may be held, but its result shall not be declared till next date of listing.”

The writ petition was dismissed in default on 4.2.2013.

6. A restoration application was filed by the petitioner immediately after two days on 6.2.2013. No order could be passed on the restoration application so filed, and in the meantime the results of the no confidence meeting dated 25.8.2012 was declared on 20.2.2013. As a consequence whereof, the petitioner, according to the respondent, stood removed from office.

7. A casual vacancy therefore arose which came to be filled up in terms of Section 12 of the 1961 Act after the vacancy was notified on 2nd March, 2013 in the elections that were held on 9.3.2013. The respondent No. 4 came to be accordingly elected to the office of Block Pramukh in the aforesaid vacancy caused.

8. The dispute took a different turn when the restoration application filed by the petitioner came to be finally