Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the President of the Nemmara Panchayat. A vote of no-confidence was passed against him on 2-6 -1956 and the government issued Ex. A on 11-8-1956: "Whereas a motion of no-confidence against Sri E. S. Viswanatha Pattamali, President of the Nemmara Panchayat has been passed by the Panchayat at its special meeting, convened and presided over by the Panchayat Inspector, Chittoor on 2-6-1956, with the support of seven out the nine members that is, not less than three fifths of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat; And whereas the President has not resigned his post within two days after the passing of the motion; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by S.40 (12) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act 1950 (II of 1950) Government hereby remove the said President from Office"It is the validity of the proceedings of the meeting held on 2-6-1956 and of Ex. A that are challenged before me. 2. Sub-section (1) of S.40 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950, provides: "Subject to the provisions of this Section, a motion, expressing want of confidence in the President or in the Vice-President may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down herein" and sub-section (2): "Written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be fixed by Government, signed by such number of members as shall constitute not less than one half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made, shall be delivered by any two members signing the notice in person together, to the Director" 3. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of Travancore-Cochin (1st respondent) and the Director of Local Bodies (2nd respondent): "A notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of no-confidence in the petitioner signed by six members of the Panchayat together with a copy of the motion was presented in person to the 2nd respondent by Sri R. R. Manicka Menon and Sri M. S. Muhammed, two of the signatories to the notice, when the 2nd respondent was on camp at Trichur". (Paragraph 4) The presentation was on 20-3-1956 and the meeting as already stated was held only on 2--6-1956. 4. (Paragraph 4) The presentation was on 20-3-1956 and the meeting as already stated was held only on 2--6-1956. 4. Sub-section (3) of S.40 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950, provides: "The Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held, at the office of the Panchayat at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him". The meeting impugned was held on a date "later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered" and in view of this the petitioner is prima facie entitled to contend that any resolution of no confidence passed at the said meeting should be treated as void and inoperative. 5. Para.6, 7 and 12 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents are to the effect that the copy of the motion delivered under S.40 [2] along with the notice of intention was lost by the 2nd respondent, that there were further proceedings on 16-5-1956, and that the latter date should be considered as the date from which the period of thirty days should be reckoned Those paragraphs read as follows: "6. But after returning to his Head quarters at Trivandrum the 2nd respondent found that the copy of the motion which was presented along with the notice was lost. He, therefore, requested Sri Manicka Menon to meet him with Sri Muhammed on 16-5-1956 at Nemmara where he was then due on tour. 7. Accordingly Sri Manicka Menon and Sri Muhammed appeared before the 2nd respondent at Nemmara on 16-5-1956 and presented a copy of the motion. The allegation in Para.5 of the petitioner's affidavit that the motion was sent by post on 24-4-1956 is not true and it is denied. 12. It is submitted that the time prescribed by S.40 (3) of the Panchayat Act has to be calculated, from the date of receipt of the copy of the motion on 16-5-1916. Thus calculated, the meeting held on 2 61956 was clearly within time" 6. 12. It is submitted that the time prescribed by S.40 (3) of the Panchayat Act has to be calculated, from the date of receipt of the copy of the motion on 16-5-1916. Thus calculated, the meeting held on 2 61956 was clearly within time" 6. There was no representation of the notice of intention to make the motion on 16-5-1956 and it is not possible to say that there has been a delivery of a "notice of intention to make the motion" together with "a copy of the motion which is proposed to the made" on 16-5-1956 within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S.40 the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950. 7. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 6 to 10 contends that subsection (3) of S.40 is not mandatory but only directory and that if the said contention is upheld, the proceedings of the meeting of 2-6-1956 and Ext. A, the notification issued by the Government in pursuance of the resolution passed at that meeting can Both be sustained. I am unable to agree. Even if I assume, without deciding, that the provisions of sub-section (3) of S.40 are only directory the petitioner must succeed. The law is not that a directory provision can be ignored, with impunity but that it should be complied with though not strictly at any rate substantially. The rule as pointed out in Woodward v. Sarsons [ (1875) L R 10 C. P. 733] is: "that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially". It is simple to say that there is a substantial compliance with the provision that the meeting should be convened "not less than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered" if a meeting is held as has been done in this case some 73 days after the relevant date. 8. It follows that the petition has to be allowed and it is hereby allowed though in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs 9. Various other contention is were raised on behalf of the petitioner but in the view I have taken it is unnecessary to deal with them and they are not considered in this judgment.