By the Court.—This petition has been filed by the Chairman of Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Faizabad. He is facing a No-Confidence-Motion the proposal whereof, is stated to have been signed by the requisite number of members. This proposal was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Faizabad who issued notice on 7th of April, 2017 fixing 28.4.2017 as the date of holding of the meeting for consideration of the aforesaid proposal of No-Confidence-Motion.

2. Apart from the other issues raised, the main ground of challenge is that the notice is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 458 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. The same is reproduced below :

“458. (1) On receipt of the notice of no confidence as provided in Rules 456 and 457, the specified authority shall fix such time, date and place as, he may consider suitable for holding a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed no confidence motion:

Provided that such meeting shall be held within thirty-five days of the receipt of the notice of no confidence:

Provided further that at least twenty-one day’s notice shall be given for holding such meeting.”

3. We had heard the matter on an earlier occasion and also passed an order yesterday extracted hereinunder :

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State and Shri Prasant Singh Atal for respondent No. 10.

The issue raised in this petition is about absence of an interval of 21 days from the date of issuance of notice to the members for holding the alleged ‘No Confidence Motion’ meeting against the petitioner.

Prima facie, we find that only 20 days have expired and therefore, the proposed ‘No Confidence Motion’ meeting cannot be held on 28.4.2017. We therefore, restrain the District Magistrate from proceeding to hold the meeting.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 10 prays that the matter may be taken up tomorrow i.e on 25th of April, 2017 for further advancing the arguments.

Put up tomorrow, i.e., 25.4.2017. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties today itself.”

4. Today, Sri Prashant Singh Atal has put in appearance on behalf of the other respondents including the respondent No. 10 who are said to have signed the No-Confidence-Motion.

5. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of clear 21 says of notice the meeting scheduled to be held on 28th April, 2017 is clearly vitiated as it is not within the mandate of the second provision to Rule 458 (1) of the 1968 Rules. He submits that since there are no 21 clear days of notice, the same would be hit by a mandatory provision and for this the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a number of decisions relating to such provisions in other enactments as well. He has invited the attention of the Court to the Full Bench (5 Judges) decision in the case of Gyan Singh v. District Magistrate, Bijnore, AIR 1975 Alld. 315, to urge that this part of the Rule being mandatory and having not been observed in accordance with the said Rules, the notice dated 7th April, 2017 is vitiated as there are only 20 days in between the date of issuance of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting to be held on 28th April, 2017.

6. The aforesaid factual position could not be disputed either by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 nor the same could be disputed by the learned counsel for the private respondents.

7. However, learned standing counsel has taken a stand to the effect that this provision being directory in nature, the members having knowledge of holding of the meeting, then any such deficiency as is being pointed out cannot invalidate the holding of the meeting of 28th April, 2017 as scheduled. He has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment in the case of Jivendra Nath Kaul v. State of U.P. and others, 1991(9) LCD 186; paragraph-31.

8. We have