IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the personal delivery requirement in Section 15(2) is directory, allowing for valid notice delivery to an alternate official.

JUDGMENT :

Personal affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 in compliance of our order is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Sri Sabhajeet Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel-VII for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

3. With their consent, the instant petition is being disposed of finally at this stage as they waive right to file further affidavits.

4. The petitioner is an elected ward member of Kshettra Panchayat, Block Karma, Tehsil Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra. She alongwith 57 other members served a written notice of intention dated 1.9.2023 to bring motion of no-confidence against the Pramukh (respondent No. 3). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 (Collector) holding that the written notice of intention to bring the motion of no-confidence against Pramukh is not in accordance with Section 15 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat, Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and was consequently rejected. The notice of intention was not found to be in consonance with Section 15 (2) of the Adhiniyam on the ground that notice was not personally delivered to the Collector but to the Chief Development Officer.

5. Before passing of the impugned order, respondent No. 2 on 17/18.9.2023 himself passed an order convening meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence on 6.10.2023 at 11:00 a.m. in the office of the Kshettray Panchayat. However, it seems that certain representation was filed by respondent No. 3 before the Collector on 22.9.2023 disputing the validity of the notice on the ground that it was not personally delivered to the District Magistrate but to the Chief Development Officer and, therefore, there was violation of mandatory provisions of Section 15(2) of the Adhiniyam. Taking notice of the said representation, the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the order dated 18.9.2023 by which the Collector initially convened meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat on 6.10.2023, it is recorded that the notice of intention to bring no-confidence motion was delivered to him on 8.9.2023 and after examining the same, he fixed the meeting. The stand now taken in the impugned order is in variance with the stand taken in his own order dated 18.9.2023. It is further submitted that even assuming that notice was delivered to the Chief Development Officer as the Collector was not present in his office at the relevant time, it would not invalidate the notice.

7. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench of this Court dated 2.2.2018 in (Misc. Bench No. 3098 of 2018 Rama Devi v. State of U.P. and others). It is urged that although delivery of the proposed motion is mandatory but its handing over to the Collector is only directory and where ultimately the motion reaches the Collector, there would be no infraction of any mandatory provision of law. He further submits that the motion in the instant case was admittedly delivered in person by the signatories thereto. The Collector in his affidavit has accepted that he was not in office on 8.9.2023 and was out for field work. It is in such circumstance that the motion was delivered by the signatories of the motion to the Chief Development Officer, Sonbhadra. He has also certified in his recent communication to respondent No. 2 that the motion was personally delivered to him by members of Kshettra Panchayat and he accepted the notice in good faith.

8. Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit has admitted that in his order dated 18.9.2023 he had mentioned that the notice was placed before him on 8.9.2023. However, it is stated that the same is wrongly recorded and the correct fact is that on that day, the notice