By the Court.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri M.D. Singh ‘Shekhar’, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has made a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 2.9.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2 to the Members of Kshetra Panchayat Paali, Tehsil Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Kshetra Panchayat’) informing them about the meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat scheduled to be held on 16.9.2017 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner (Annexure 14 to the writ petition).

3. The facts leading to this writ petition, which are not disputed, are that the petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat in the year 2015. A motion of no confidence was mooted against the petitioner allegedly by 44 members of the Kshetra Panchayat. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 2.9.2017 convened meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat on 18.9.2017 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Simultaneously, the Collector issued a notice dated 2.9.2017 to the members as mandated by clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam. The notice dated 2.9.2017 under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam was, however, dispatched on 4.9.2017 by registered post from Rithua Khor. The notice was also affixed on the notice board on 2.9.2017.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 1st part of clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam is mandatory. He has submitted that the words “not less than” used in the said clause indicate that 15 days’ clear notice has to be given to the elected members before a motion of no confidence can be taken up for consideration and for calculating the 15 days’ period, both the first and the last dates have to be excluded from consideration. It was further submitted that the notice was dispatched on 4.9.2017 informing the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat about the meeting convened for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner on 16.9.2017 and, thus, the interval between the date of dispatch of the notice and the date of holding of meeting was less than 15 days. He lastly submitted that the impugned notice dated 2.9.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2 and dispatched to the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat by registered post on 4.9.2017 informing them about the date of the meeting convened by him for considering the no confidence motion is per-se illegal being violative of the mandate of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, hence liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri M.D. Singh ‘Shekhar’, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Kamla Singh for the respondent No. 5 submitted that though the 1st part of the clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam regarding giving of notice was mandatory, the provision in regard to the time occurring therein is directory and not mandatory. Alternatively, Sri M.D. Singh ‘Shekhar’, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that in case this Court holds that clear 15 days’ notice is required to be given to the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat of the date of meeting convened for considering of motion of no confidence against the Block Pramukh is mandatory, in that case the impugned notice may be quashed with liberty to the members of the Kshetra Panchayat to bring a fresh motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record pertaining to the impugned