JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra and Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents.

1. The petitioner, who is an elected Block Pramukh of Block Sarojini Nagar in District Lucknow, has sought the quashing of the show cause notice dated 07.10.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2, Collector/District Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 15(3) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, here-in-after referred as 'the Adhiniyam, 1961' for calling a meeting of the Members of the Block Development Committee on 21.10.2017 for consideration of no confidence against the petitioner.

2. The total strength of members of the Block Development Committee, Block Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow is 123. The petitioner was elected as Block Pramukh in the year 2016. In July, 2017, a no confidence motion was agitated against the petitioner but petitioner submitted affidavit of 85 Block Pramukh Development members and thereafter proceedings of no confidence motion was dropped.

3. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 07.10.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2 fixing a date for meeting on 21.10.2017 on the ground that it was in violation of provisions contained in Section 15(3)(ii) of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, as it did not comply with the provisions requiring 15 days clear notice. The impugned notice has been issued in utter infringement of mandatory provision contained in Section 15(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 which states that no confidence motion can be contemplated in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 15 only.

4. According to the petitioner, the impugned notices dated 07.10.2017 were actually dispatched to the BDC Members through speed post. On 08.10.2017 was Sunday. The speed-post notice was received by the petitioner on 10.10.2017. The gap between the date of dispatch of the notice and the date of holding of meeting was less than fifteen days. The notice was, thus, illegal and consequently the business transacted in pursuance of the said notice was null and void and was liable to be declared as such.

5. As per counter affidavit of respondents no. 2 and 3, on 07.10.2017 notice for no confidence motion has been issued under Section 15(3)(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 for convening a meeting of Kshetra Panchayat, Sarojini Nagar in the office of the Kshetra Panchayat on 21.10.2017 and in this regard vide letter dated 07.10.2017 all Members of Kshetra Panchayat were informed by the District Magistrate. Shri Shailendra Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow has been appointed as Presiding Officer/President of the meeting vide order dated 07.10.2017, for presiding the aforesaid meeting scheduled to be held on 21.10.2017. The respondent no. 2 denied that any proposal for no-confidence motion was placed before the Collector, Lucknow in the month of July, 2017 whereas the letter of petitioner dated 24.07.2017 was received in the office of Collector, Lucknow. It is also stated that procedure as prescribed under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1961 has been duly followed by the respondent no. 2.

6. As per supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 6, a writ petition no. 25179 (M/B) of 2017 (Brijbhan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was also filed for same cause of action. In the said writ petition, the petitioner in the present writ petition was petitioner no. 7. In paragraph no. 3 of the said writ petition it is mentioned that the petitioners are the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and the petitioner no. 7 is the Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. The said writ petition was filed by 64 petitioners and the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated on 21.10.2017 but present writ petitioner deliberately did no