By the Court.—An elected Block Pramukh of Block Ghiror, District Mainpuri has filed this petition to challenge the notice issued by the Collector for holding of the meeting of the members of Ghiror Kshettra Panchayat on 4 September 2017 for consideration of the motion of no cofidence against her.

2. It is stated that the total number of members of the Kshettra Panchayat is 86 out of which 63 members had signed the motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh that was submitted to the Collector, Mainpuri on 9 August 2017. It is also stated that on 16 August 2017 the Collector issued a notice to 86 members under Section 15(3)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (the Act) that the meeting of the members in the Office of Kshettra Panchayat Samiti will take place on 4 September 2017 at 11:00 a.m. for considering the motion of no confidence made against the petitioner Sarita Devi.

3. According to the petitioner out of the 86 members, notice on 50 members was personally served by the Office of the Block Development Officer, Ghiror. Regarding this personal service, it has been stated that five members were served on 17 August 2017, three on 18 August 2017, two on 19 August 2017, one on 22 August 2017, thirty one on 23 August 2017 and four on 24 August 2017. The petitioner has further stated that no date has been mentioned regarding service of notice on four members. Petitioner has also stated that for the remaining 36 members, notices were sent by registered post on 24 August 2017 and 25 August 2017.

4. The petitioner contends that Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act requires the Collector to give to the elected Members of the Kshettra Panchayat notice of not less than 15 days of the meeting in the prescribed manner. Thus, if the meeting was to be held on 4 September 2017, notice had to be served on the members on or before 19 August 2017 and since notice had been served only on 10 members before 19 August 2017, the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act have not been complied with and, therefore, no meeting could have been held for consideration of the no confidence motion on 4 September 2017.

5. When the matter was taken up on 31 August 2017, a short counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No. 3-Satya Pal Singh who had submitted the motion of no confidence before the Collector on 9 August 2017. In the short counter-affidavit it has been stated that the notice was also published in newspapers on 17 August 2017 and, therefore, there has been a substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act.

6. The Court, therefore, directed that the records relating to the no confidence motion shall be produced before the Court on 11 September 2017. The Court also directed that the meeting proposed to be held on 4 September 2017 could take place but the result was not to be declared till the next date of listing.

Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act which relate to “motion of no confidence” and has submitted that since the Collector has not given to the elected Members of the Kshettra Panchayat notice of not less than 15 days of such meeting, the holding of the meeting on 4 September 2017 was clearly vitiated. In this connection learned counsel has submitted that the three newspaper publications on which reliance has been placed by the respondents merely give information about the meeting and cannot be described as “notice” contemplated under Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act and in any case the information was not given by the Collector but by the District Panchayat Raj Officer who had no jurisdiction to give the notice.

Ms. Meenakshi Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has, however, placed reliance upon the records and has submitted that the notice was published in the newspapers on the basis of a communication dated 16 August 2017 sent by the District M