JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner was in 1960 elected as the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, Pamrauli, in the district of Fatehpur. A notice of an intention to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner, signed by 273 members of the Gaon Sabha, was delivered to the District Panchayat Officer, Fatehpur, on 22-1-1968. The District Panchayat Officer on 27-1-1968 directed the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) to make an enquiry into several matters including the verification of the signatures and thumb impressions on the notice. The report was to be submitted by 5th February, 1968. This order was passed presumably because the petitioner had made an application before the District Panchayat Officer raising doubts about the genuineness of the various signatures on the notice. The Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) submitted a report dated 4th February, 1968, stating that out of a total number of 273 signatures on the notice, 246 were of members of the Gaon Sabha, whereas 27 thumb impressions or signatures were of persons, who were not members of the Gaon Sabha. Thereupon, the District Panchayat Officer fixed 25th February, 1968, for convening a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence. This direction is sought to be set aside on the ground that the date fixed for convening the meeting contravened Rule 33-B of the Panchayat Raj Rules. Under this Rule, the Prescribed Authority is to convene the meeting on a date which is not later than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice was received on 22nd January, 1968. The meeting was convened for 25th February, 1968, which is more than 30 days of the date of the receipt of the notice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Brij Mohan Gupta v. District Magistrate, 1955 ALJ 804. In that case, the provision in Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, requiring that a meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence in the President ought to be fixed in not less than 30 days and not later than 35 days of the date of the notice, was held to be a mandatory provision, non-compliance with which would render the convening of a meeting invalid. On the basis of this decision, it was urged that the provisions of Rule 33-B of the Panchayat Raj Rules ought also to be held mandatory. 3. Sec. 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act provides that a motion expressing no-confidence in the President shall be made 'only in accordance with the procedure laid down below'. It was held that Section 87-A prescribed a procedure not merely with a view to ascertain the wishes of the majority of the members; but it was considered as a matter of public policy necessary that the procedure prescribed therein should be strictly followed. 4. In Daya Krishna Pandey v. District Magistrate, Naini Tal, 1958 ALJ 208, a Division Bench of our Court held that the requirement that the meeting should be convened within not less than 30 days and not later than 35 days under Section 87-A (3) of the Municipalities Act was not a provision laying down a period of limitation for the District Magistrate to take the action. When a public authority is required to take action within a certain time, the prescription of time is not a period of limitation in the sense that if the period is allowed to lapse, the public authority loses the power to take the action. That would also go to suggest that the provision fixing a time within which an action could be taken by a public authority is not compulsive, in the sense that the public authority would become powerless to take action after the prescribed time, or that the action would in law be a nullity. This decision does, in my opinion, adopt a line of reasoning, which whittles down the efficacy of the decision in Brij Mohan Gupta's case. 5. Sec. 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act provides for the removal of Pradhan. It lays down that the Gaon Sabha may, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-third of the members present and voting. Such a meeting is to be convened at least after 15 days' previous notice. The meeting is not to be convened within one year of the election of the Pradhan. It lays down that the Gaon Sabha may, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-third of the members present and voting. Such a meeting is to be convened at least after 15 days' previous notice. The meeting is not to be convened within one year of the election of the Pradhan. The third aspect mentioned in the Section is that if the motion is not taken up for want of quorum or falls for lack of the requisite majority, no subsequent meeting shall be convened within a year of the previous meeting. Sub-sec. (4) of the Section then provides that 'subject to the provisions of this Section, the procedure for removal of the Pradhan, including that to be followed at such meeting, shall be such as may be prescribed'. 6. The Legislature laid down the main features of the method to be followed for removal of the Pradhan in Section 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Other minor procedural matters were left to the rule making authority. Those other matters were obviously not considered by the Legislature to be of such importance that their infraction may go to invalidate or nullify the entire proceedings. This intention seems fortified by the absence in Section 14 of th2 Panchayat Raj Act of any provision, as is contained in Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act, making compliance with the prescribed procedure rigidly necessary. 7. It is apparent that the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act was primarily to provide for a method for obtaining the wishes of the requisite majority of the members of the Gaon Sabha in relation to the motion of no-confidence in the Pradhan. The provision about the convening of the meeting of the Gaon Sabha not later than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice has been made in the Rules vide, clause (2) of Rule 33-B. This was not provided for in Section 14 itself. That shows that the Legislature did not place much importance on this matter, in the background of the general object intended to be secured by the Section. That shows that the Legislature did not place much importance on this matter, in the background of the general object intended to be secured by the Section. Looking to the intention of the Legislature, the object sought to be achieved and the importance of the particular provision under consideration, it is, in my opinion, clear that the provision requiring the convening of a meeting not later than 30 days is not compulsive or mandatory. It is merely directory. It is to be complied with substantially, but its infraction would not nullify the proceedings at the meeting. 8. The other point urged by the Learned Counsel was that the District Panchayat Officer had directed the Assistant Development Officer to verify the genuineness of the signatures appended to the notice. The notice was signed by 273 members. The Assistant Development Officer has in his report stated that he made enquiries from 98 persons only. It was urged that the directive of the District Panchayat Officer was not carried out by the Assistant Development Officer. His report was, therefore, not valid. Since the District Panchayat Officer had directed the holding of an enquiry into the genuineness of the signatures, he was not entitled to fix a date for the convening of the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence till the enquiry had been completed properly. There is no merit in this submission either. In Mathura Prasad Tiwari v. Asstt. District Panchayat Officer, 1966 ALJ 613, a Full Bench of this Court held that the prescribed authority was not obliged by law to make an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures appended to a notice. The enquiry directed to be conducted in the instant case was an informal matter, for the personal satisfaction of the prescribed authority with which the Pradhan or the other members of the Gaon Sabha had no concern or interest. Even if the enquiry held by the Assistant Development Officer was perfunctory or not strictly in accordance with the directions of the District Panchayat Officer, the convening of the motion to consider The motion was not at all affected. The petitioner could not say that the meeting of the Gaon Sabha to consider the motion should not have been convened till the enquiry was completed. 9. There is no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs. The stay order is vacated