Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—An elected Block Pramukh of Block Bithri, Chainpur in district Bareilly has filed this petition to assail the order dated 24 October 2017 issued by the Collector, Bareilly on the written notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

2. It is stated that the total strength of the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat is 112 and 70 of these elected members submitted a written notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence with a copy of the proposed motion against the petitioner to the Collector on 23 October 2017 under Section 15(2) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The Collector then issued an order dated 24 October 2017 that the meeting of all the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat shall be held on 11 November 2017 at 10:30 a.m in the office of the Kshettra Panchayat to consider the proposed motion of no confidence against the petitioner and also appointed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar as the Presiding Officer. Copies of the order as also the proposed motion were endorsed to the Block Development Officer to paste them on the notice board of the Kshettra Panchayat on 25 October 2017 and to the Zila Panchayat Raj Officer Bareilly to send copies of the notice/proposed motion by registered post to all the elected members.

3. On 8 November 2017, when the matter was taken up by the Court, it was sought to be contended by Sri Ravi Kant learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act had not been complied with as 15 days time for holding such a meeting was not given to the members. This submission was based on the averments made in the supplementary-affidavit sworn on 7 November 2017 that the notice sent by the Collector was actually received by 16 members of the Kshettra Panchayat on various dates between 27 October 2017 and 1 November 2017, while seven members had not received the notice at all.

4. It was, however, sought to be urged by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the elected Block Pramukh that the notice dated 24 October 2017 issued by the Collector was not only despatched by registered post on 24 October 2017 but it was also published in the newspaper on 25 October 2017. It was also stated by learned Senior Counsel that the notice and the proposed motion were also pasted on the notice board of the office of the Kshettra Panchayat on 25 October 2017. The submission, therefore, was that the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act had been duly complied with.

5. Learned Standing Counsel was, accordingly, granted time to seek instructions in the matter and to also place the original records before the Court. It was also ordered that the meeting could take place but the result would not be declared.

6. When the matter was taken up by the Court on 16 November 2017, a third supplementary-affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating inter alia that the order dated 24 October 2017 issued by the Collector had been subsequently modified and the First Additional City Magistrate had been appointed as the Presiding Officer instead of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who had earlier been appointed. A chart was also enclosed with the supplementary-affidavit as Annexure-SA-2. It gives the dates on which the registered envelopes sent by registered post containing the notice and the proposed motion were received by 43 members of the Zila Panchayat. It indicates that the envelopes were received by them between 27 October 2017 and 13 November 2017.

7. Ms. Meenakshi Singh, learned Standing Counsel has produced the original records. The records indicate that the notice dated 24 October 2017 and the proposed motion of no confidence were despatched by registered post to all the members of the Kshettra Panchayat on 24 October 2017. The records also indicate that the notice dated 24 October 2017 and the proposed motion of no confidence were past