JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The controversy in the present case centres around the legality of the notice of no confidence motion issued by the District Magistrate, Barielly in purported exercise of power under Section 15 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam, 1961') on 21st December, 2018. By the said notice the District Magistrate, Barielly fixed meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat, Alampur, Jafarabad, District Barielly on 6th January, 2019 to discuss the motion notice which was mooted by more than half members of the Kshettra Panchayat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the notice itself which is in the form of an order dated 21st December, 2018 directing for meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat to consider the motion of no confidence. He points out that in the order itself after it has been signed, it has been forwarded for information and necessary action to the Block Development Officer and the necessary action contemplated in the order is that the notice of no confidence motion is to be pasted on the notice board on 22nd December 2018 and further directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to issue notice by registered letter to all the members of Kshettra Panchayat.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to page 16 of the writ petition and also the photo copy of the envelop that contained the notice to demonstrate that notice in fact was issued by the registered post on 22nd December, 2018 only.

5. The argument, therefore, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of the provisions as contained under the relevant provision of the Adhiniyam, 1961, there has to be a clear 15 days notice for the scheduled meeting of the members of the Kshettra Panchayat. He argues that the notice as contemplated in the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1961, uses the words 'not less than' and, therefore, in computing the period of 15 days, one has to keep in mind that there has to be a clear 15 days notice. He argues that 15 clear days notice means the date of issuance of the notice and the date on which the meeting scheduled, has to be excluded. He has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Sharma v. State of U.P. and others decided on 5th October, 2013 in Writ-C No.-9763 of 2013. He has further placed reliance upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamla Devi v. State of U.P and others, decided on 14th February, 2014 in Civil Misc. Writ petition No.-41077 of 2012, in which it has been held that if a clear 15 days notice is not there then the notice per se is illegal and is not sustainable and, therefore, even if during pendency of the writ petition, scheduled meeting was permitted to be held and the motion is alleged to have been carried out, it would amount to a nullity. He submits that if the notice itself is bad, the consequential action to the notice is also turned out to be bad.

6. Per contra, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents is that a form of notice is mere formality and is not mandatory in nature. He argued that intendment of the Legislature as is reflected from the relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1961 is that a person against whom the notice is slated, should have the knowledge of the notice and then those who have participated in the meeting should have also the knowledge of the notice. Whether the notice is pasted on the notice board of the Kshettra Panchayat or sent by the registered post hardly makes a difference. He argues that even otherwise, this Court while entertaining this writ petition had permitted the meeting to be held on the scheduled date and the motion has been carried out as ha