By the Court.—This petition brings forth the grievance on behalf of the petitioner impeaching the action of the District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly for convening the meeting for consideration of the No Confidence Motion on 15.4.2017 under the impugned notice dated 30.3.2017 in terms of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961. The petitioner is the elected Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Rae Bareilly.

2. The petition was entertained by us and on hearing the preliminary arguments, the following order was passed on 6.4.2017 :

“A supplementary-affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record.

We have heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

An impleadment application has been filed by one Prabhat Kumar @ Prabhat Kumar Gupta, a Member of the Zila Panchayat, Rae Bareli and we have heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel on his behalf as well. The said application has been entertained in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition without impleading any of the persons who have proposed the No Confidence Motion, which is the subject-matter of dispute in the present writ petition and reliance has been placed on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Tiwari v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad; 1967 RD 17.

This petition pertains to an allegation of non-compliance of the procedure of moving a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, the petitioner herein, in terms of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 read with Zila Parishad Rules regarding Motion of No Confidence as notified on 14.12.1962.

Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel has urged that the said ‘No Confidence Motion’, which is alleged to have been notified to the District Magistrate is not in accordance with the aforesaid Rules inasmuch as it mentions the district of Bareily instead of Rae-Bareily, and it does not indicate any date of the moving of the said intention. He submits that this could not have been otherwise also possible, as, such an issue had been raised at item No. 16 in the meeting dated 25.3.2017 itself and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of moving of such an intention on the same date. He submits that the District Magistrate hurriedly without taking notice of the aforesaid facts and without even examining the objections relating to the moving of the affidavits, which according to the petitioner demonstrated that the signatures on the ‘No Confidence Motion’ notice were fake, renders the notice for consideration of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ on 15.4.2017 as invalid. The contention, therefore, is that the meeting convened for the said purpose on 15.4.2017 cannot be held as the entire procedure prescribed and which is mandatory having not been followed, the holding of the very meeting of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ is unlawful.

Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel has urged that the District Magistrate is under a mandate to scrutinize such infirmities as he is not mere a post office as has been held in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and others; 2015(2) ADJ 325 (FB). He further submits that the non-mentioning of the date on the alleged ‘No Confidence Motion’ notice also vitiates the entire process adopted inasmuch as, in the absence of any date, the calculation of the period of thirty days as prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 28 for holding of such a meeting, cannot be made and, therefore, it would be reasonable to presume and construe that the aforesaid condition does not stand fulfilled. Hence, the issuance of the notice for ho