Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—There exists a Kshettra Panchayat in Block Mahewa called Kshettra Panchayat Mahewa, Block Mahewa, District Etawah. The said Kshettra Panchayat was constituted under the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act”). The affairs and administration of the said Kshettra Panchayat are governed and regulated by the said Act.

2. The total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat, Mahewa is 106. The petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Mahewa, District Etawah in January 2016. 56 elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat, Mahewa formed the intention to express want of confidence in the petitioner. The aforesaid 56 members drew up a written notice with intention to make a motion of no-confidence and caused it to be served upon the Collector, Etawah. The Collector, Etawah upon receipt of the said notice of intention, made a notice on 13.10.2017, convening the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence on 30.10.2017. The notice dated 13.10.2017 of the said meeting was sent to the members of the Kshettra Panchayat, Mahewa.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the Collector has laid out a challenge to the no-confidence proceedings initiated against him and has assailed the notice dated 13.10.2017 issued by the Collector convening the meeting, to consider the motion of no-confidence on 30.12.2017.

4. We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel appearing for respondent 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4.

5. The only argument in support of the petition and against no-confidence proceedings raised by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was not given the minimum of 15 days notice of the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence which was held on 30.10.2017. The failure to provide notice of “not less than 15 days” of the meeting of no-confidence is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 15 (3) (ii) of the Act. The provision is mandatory and breach thereof would vitiate the proceedings of no-confidence.

6. On facts, it was contended that the impugned notice dated 30.10.2017 taken out by the Collector to convene the meeting of no-confidence was received by the petitioner on 16.10.2017. The time period between the receipt of notice by the petitioner on 16.10.2017 and the date of the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence i.e. 30.10.2017 is less than 15 days.

7. Per contra Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for respondent 5 contends that action of the Collector is compliant with the provisions of Section 15 (3) (ii) of the Act. The mandatory period of notice of the meeting for no-confidence to the members of the Kshettra Panchayat is to be counted from the date of dispatch of notice to the members and not the date of receipt of such notice by the members. He further contends that while counting the period of notice of “not less than 15 days” as provided for in the Act, the terminal days namely the date of issuance of notice and the date of meeting are to be excluded. In this manner, in the facts of the case the statutory mandate of giving notice to the members of “not less than 15 days of such meeting has been given effect to. In support of his submissions Sri Rakesh Pande has relied upon judgments of this Court rendered in Satya Prakash Mani and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2005) 2 UPLBEC 1883 and Yadu Nath Pandey v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, (1986) UPLBEC 632.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has adopted the arguments of Sri Rakesh Pande and has defended the action of the Collector in similar terms.

9. From the submissions at the bar, it is evident that the controversy is primarily legal in nature.

10. However, certain facts have to be established before the legal propositions can be considered.

11. Fr