JUDGMENT A.P. Srivastava, J. - Mohammad Fayaz Khan has filed this appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge rejecting his writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the District Magistrate of Rampur and five members of the Town Area Committee, Bilaspur in district Rampur, of which the appellant is the Chairman, not to hold any' meeting of non-confidence on the 26th of August 1956 or any other date thereafter. 2. The grounds on which the appellant sought the relief were that the written notice of intention to make a motion of non-confidence in the Chairman had not been signed by such number of members of the Committee as constituted not less than one half of the total number of members of the Committee, the notice being signed by five such members though the Committee consisted of ten elected members and the Chairman, that he himself had not been given notice of the meeting and that the notification of the Government in 1956 dated the 2nd May, 1956 extending the provisions of Sections 87A and 47A of U. P. Municipalities Act as modified to the Town Areas was ultra vires. 3. We have dealt with the question of the validity of the extension of the two sections of the Municipalities Act to the Town Areas of Uttar Pradesh by the Governor in May 1956 in our order in Special Appeal No. 22 of 1957. We held that the sections had been validly extended to the Town Areas of this State. 4. The contention that the appellant was not sent a notice of the meeting by the District Magistrate, but was sent only a copy of the notice sent to the other members of the Committee and that the notice was not accompanied with a copy of the motion of non-confidence or even with the substance of such a motion cannot, in our opinion, affect the valid convening of the meeting to consider the motion of non-confidence. The District Magistrate has to send a notice of the meeting specifying certain particulars mentioned in sub-Section (3) of Section 87A as applied to the Town Areas. Notice means giving information of the proposed convening of the meeting at a certain date and time. The District Magistrate has to send a notice of the meeting specifying certain particulars mentioned in sub-Section (3) of Section 87A as applied to the Town Areas. Notice means giving information of the proposed convening of the meeting at a certain date and time. It makes no difference whether such information is conveyed by an original notice or by a copy of the notice sent to the other members. It is contended that the notice sent to the appellant did not even ask him to participate in the meeting. That is not a requirement of the notice to be given by the District Magistrate in sub Section (3) of Section 87A. The mere fact that a notice of the meeting is given to a person who is entitled to take part in that meeting is sufficient. Section 87A does not require a District Magistrate to send a copy of the motion of non-confidence or its substance to the members of the Committee or to the Chairman. It has been so held in Abdul Wajid v. The State of U. P., A.I.R. 1955 Alld. 708,. The Bench deciding that case did certainly observe that it was highly desirable that the full text of the non-confidence motion be mentioned in the notice and that it would be quite in order if the substance of the motion is communicated to the members in the notice sent to them. It is not made clear what would amount to giving of substance of the motion. It does not appear from the facts of that case as mentioned in the judgment that in that case anything beyond the mentioning of the time, date, place and that a resolution of non-confidence would be moved were conveyed to the members by the notice issued by the District Magistrate. The meeting was not held to be vitiated on account of the omission to send a full text of the motion or its substance to the members along with the notice. We therefore hold that neither of these two contentions is sound. 5. The other contention is that the notice of the motion was signed by five members of the Committee while it should have been signed by at least six members in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 87A of the Municipalities Act as applied to the Town Areas. We therefore hold that neither of these two contentions is sound. 5. The other contention is that the notice of the motion was signed by five members of the Committee while it should have been signed by at least six members in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 87A of the Municipalities Act as applied to the Town Areas. The respondent disputed this contention and it was alleged in the counter-affidavit that notice of the motion of non-confidence was signed by six members of the Committee. We sent for the original notice which is before us. It bears the signatures of six persons who apparently were the members of the Committee. In the circumstances it is not correct as alleged in the petition and the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner that the notice of the non-confidence motion purported to be signed only by five members. The total membership of the Committee including the Chairman is eleven and, therefore, the notice was signed by not less than half the total members of the Committee. This contention, therefore, also fails. 6. In view of the above we dismiss this appeal with costs. The interim stay order is discharged.