By the Court.—The petitioner is the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Kuthond, District-Jalaun. The total number of elected members of the aforesaid Kshettra Panchayat is 69. 49 elected members of the aforesaid Kshettra Panchayat formed the intention to bring a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The aforesaid members reduced their intention to writing by creating a written notice of intention dated 17.1.2018 to make the motion of no confidence. The aforesaid motion signed by the 49 members was submitted to the Collector. The Collector upon receipt of the said notice called a meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of the motion. A notice dated 23.1.2018 issued by the Collector called the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner on 13.2.2018.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.1.2018 passed by the Collector calling the meeting of no confidence on 13.2.2018.

3. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the written notice of intention dated 17.1.2018 was not in the form contemplated under Section 15(2) of The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)

4. The facts of the case established beyond doubt are as follows:

The intention of the members of making the motion of no confidence was reduced to writing in the form of notice dated 17.1.2018. The said notice manifests the clear intention of the members to make the motion in explicit terms. The notice was signed by 49 members. The total strength of elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat Kuthond, District-Jaulaun is 69. Thus, more than half of the total number of the members for the time being have signed the notice of intention to make the motion, which is the requisite statutory strength for a valid notice. The substantial requirements of a notice required to be submitted by the members desirous of making the motion of no confidence under Section 15(2) of the U.P. Kshetra and Zila Panchayat Act have been duly complied with. This Court in the case of Shashi Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2018(4) ADJ 1 while considering Section 15(2) of the Act and the challenge to a notice submitted thereunder held thus:

“38. We hold the provision regarding the form of written notice of intention to make the motion required to be submitted to the Collector on behalf of the members signing the notice under Section 15(2) is to be directory in nature. A substantial compliance of the provisions would implement the requirements of law. A substantial compliance is done when the purpose of the notice is achieved. The purpose of the notice of intent to make the motion, is to furnish to the Collector the material on which he has to found his satisfaction before convening the meeting. Such material should demonstrate full compliance of mandatory provisions of 15(2) of the Act.In particular, the notice should be in writing. It should manifest the clear intention of the members to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh. It should be signed by at least half of the elected members. The copy of the no confidence motion should be attached thereto.

39. In fact, if a strict compliance of the said mandatory parts of Section 15(2) is done, then the substantial compliance of directory provisions of the aforesaid of Section 15(2) would be automatically deemed to have been done.

40. If such facts or material can be distilled from the notice to make a motion expressing want of confidence irrespective of its form, it substantially complies with the mandate of law. As has been held, these prerequisites are fulfilled in the instant case.”

5. The notice dated 17.1.2018 complies with the mandate of Section 15(2) of the Act, and is in conformity with the law laid down in the case of Shashi Yadav (supra). The first submission on behalf of the petitioner is thus rejected.

6. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is t