JUDGMENT Satish Chandra C.J. - The petitioner challenges the validity of a declaration, dated 9th April, 1981 made by the Prescribed Authority holding that the motion of no confidence against the petitioners functioning as the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha has been passed by the requisite majority of voters. 2. Two principal grounds have been urged in support of the writ petition (i) that the requisite 15 day notice was not given : (ii) that the result of the counting of the votes was fraudulently changed. 3. According to the petitioner certain persons presented a motion of no confidence against the petitioner to the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 10th March, 1981. The Officer fixed the meeting of the Gaon Sabha for 2nd April, 1981 of which the notice was issued on 22nd March, 1981. Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 requires 15 days notice. The notice issued on 22nd March, 1981 did not give 15 days prior notice of the meeting held on 2nd April, 1981. Hence the proceedings were void. 4. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the notice was issued on 12th March, 1981 and not on 22nd March, 1981. The Presiding Officer has himself come forward to file an affidavit to this effect. It has been further asserted that the copy of the no ice annexed to the writ petition, in which 22nd March, 1981 is shown as its date, is a forged document. The actual notice was dated 12th March, 1981 and the same was issued on that date. The publication of the notice was made as is required under the rules. The same was also announced in the village by beat of drums. In this connection another controversy which has cropped up is whether the notice was served on the petitioner on 24th March, 1981, as alleged by the petitioner on 12th March, 1981 on the petitioner's son, as alleged by the respondents. 5. The same was also announced in the village by beat of drums. In this connection another controversy which has cropped up is whether the notice was served on the petitioner on 24th March, 1981, as alleged by the petitioner on 12th March, 1981 on the petitioner's son, as alleged by the respondents. 5. After having gone through various affidavits filed in this case, we are not satisfied that the person who actually served the notice is speaking a lit and there is nothing to doubt the veracity of his deposition, wherein he says that he served the notice dated 12th March, 1981 on one Kisan Lal in the evening of 12th March, 1981, who came out of the house of the petitioner, because the petitioner was not available at his house at that time. Nonetheless the controversy is not very material. Rule 33-B lays down the procedure for convening and holding of the meeting for removal of the the Pradhan under Section 14 of the Act. Rule 33 requires 15 days notice for meetings. Section 14 of the Act also requires 15 days previous notice of meetings for removal of the Pradhan. Rule 33-B, however, does not prescribe the mode of service of the notice. It does not say on whom the notice should be served. Rule 37 (1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules provides "A notice to attend a meeting of the Gaon Sabha shall state the date, tune and place of the meeting and shall be published by of is no it at conspicuous places in the area of Gaon Sabha. The announcement of the date time and places clear of the meeting shall also be made by the beat of drum." It, thus appears that there is no rule requiring service of the notice of the meeting to remove a Pradhan to be effected on any particular member or office bearer or ether person personally. Publication of notice seems to be enough. The respondents have very clearly stated that the notice was affixed at many conspicuous places in the area of the Gaon Sabha and announcement of the date, time and plate of the meeting was also made by the beat of drum. As such in this petition the date of service of the notice, whether it was 24th March, on the petitioner or it was 12th March, 1981 on the petitioners son loses its importance. As such in this petition the date of service of the notice, whether it was 24th March, on the petitioner or it was 12th March, 1981 on the petitioners son loses its importance. We have no reason to doubt that the notice was issued on 12th March, 1981 fixing 2nd April, 1981 for convening the meeting. There was thus enough 15 days notice. 6. The next point urged is that at the meeting the motion of no confidence failed. Under Section 14 of the Act such a motion is required to be passed by two third-majority of the members present in voting. The petitioner alleged that a total number of 2211 votes were cast. Out of them 1387 votes were cast in favour of no confidence resolution 823 votes were cast against the no confidence resolution and 1 vote was rejected. In this way the motion was lost by majority of 86 votes. A cording to him the Presiding Officer on an application made by him (petitioner) gave to him a certificate in writing to that effect. A copy of that certificate is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that in all 2214 votes were cast. Out of them 2211 votes were found valid. Out of the valid votes 1481 votes were cast in favour of the no confidence motion and 72 votes were cast against it. Thus there was clear to the third majority in favour of no confidence' motion. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Presiding Officer Shri Har Swarup Sharma did not give any certificate in writing of the result of the counting, and that the copy of the written certificate of the result of the counting annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition is a fictitious and Farzi document. Shri Har Swarup Sharma has himself come forward to file an affidavit in which he states that he never gave any certificate to the petitioner of the kind mentioned above, nor did he announce the result of the voting in the manner alleged by the petitioner. He also stated that the certificate annexed to the writ petition (annexure 5) is a forged document. To say the least, the facts on this accept are disputed. He also stated that the certificate annexed to the writ petition (annexure 5) is a forged document. To say the least, the facts on this accept are disputed. It is well settled principle of law that in a petition under Article 22 of the Constitution no relief can be granted on disputed facts. Further-more on perusal of various affidavit, it appears to us that the version of Shri Har Swarup Sharma is believable. There is no reason for him to first give a certificate as alleged by the petitioner and then make the declaration dated 9th April, 1981 of the passing of the no confidence subsequently. We are hence unable to believe the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to certain averments indicating that the meeting was not convened properly. Since the petition fails for the reasons assigned above, we are not inclined to deal with those averments. 8. If the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.