Rule 3(3) of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, which requires the prescribed authority to convene a meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, is mandatory and not directory.

A.K. Mathur, C.J.

1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16-10-1996 and 24-1-1997 passed in W. P. No. 2473/96 and W. P. No. 3890/96 respectively; therefore, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. L.PA. No. 225/96 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-10-1996 passed in W. P. No. 2473/96 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition relying on his earlier decision given in the case of Dhumadandhin v. State of M.P., 1997 (2) MPLJ 175.

3. The brief facts giving in LPA No. 225/96 are taken into consideration. A notice to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner was given on 16-5-1996. It is averred that on the basis of the aforesaid notice the prescribed authority fixed the date of meeting for 17-6-1996 and on the said date, no confidence motion was carried out by the required majority. Therefore, a petition (W.P. No. 2473/96) was filed challenging the passing of no confidence motion on the ground that the meeting was convened after expiry of 15 days under Rule 3(3) of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as the "Niyam of 1994" in brevity). Therefore, the question for consideration was whether Rule 3(3) is a mandatory or a directory. There is difference of opinion on this issue. Prasad, J., in the case of Dhumadandhin (supra), took a view that Rule 3(3) is directory. The same view has been followed by Dharmadhikari, J., in subsequent decision given in the case of Ramlal Dayal v. State of M.P. decided on 11-3-1997 and in Anr. decision given in the case of Smt. Baby Raja v. State of M.P. and Ors., decided on 2-4-1997.

4. Our attention was also invited to a decision given by D. P. S. Chauhan, J., in Manbai v. State of M.P. and Ors., decided on 10-2-1998 in W. P. No. 657/97, wherein Rule 3(3) came up for interpretation and in that the question was with regard to 7 days notice before the meeting came up for interpretation and the Lordship had an occasion to interpret the words 'not less than' and in that context, the Lordship held that it is mandatory. Though the question with regard to calling the meeting within 15 days did not fall for consideration, the case was only with regard to that every member of Panchayat concerned should be given 7 days notice before meeting and this expression, the Lordship has held it to be mandatory. In this connection, reference was made to a decision given in the case of Chambers v. Smith, 13 LJ Ex. 25 and to a decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Motors Ltd. v. Nagercoil Municipal Council, AIR 1967 SC 684 and their Lordships referred to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, p. 351, wherein the question 'not less than' appeared and it has been interpreted that some days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation, and their lordships held that 7 days notice means seven days clear notice of the meeting. Lordship also referred Section 21 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 (in short "Act") to mean that the meeting which has been convened for no confidence motion can also be adjourned because the authority which has been convened the meeting; can adjourn the meeting also for good reasons.

5. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in Hargovind Johari v. Zilla Panchayat, 1996 MPLJ 409, wherein Doabia, J., has considered this aspect and interpreted Rule 3(3) as mandatory and it was held that once the meeting has been convened then it cannot be adjourned and if it is adjourned beyond 15 days then such meeting will be invalid as Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994, is mandatory. In this connection, the Lordship has considered the decision given in Shankerlal v. Collector, Mandsaur, 1975 MPLJ 190 a