JUDGMENT : V.K. KHANNA, J. 1. The Petitioner in this writ petition is the duly elected pramukh of Kshetriya Samiti Bhaujipura district Bareilly. A notice for motion of no confidence was given to the Collector Bareilly on 17-3-1990 by respondent No. 3 which was supported by other members of Kshetriya Samiti as well. The Collector Bareilly at the first instance verified the signatures of the members who were said to be supporting the notice for motion of no confidence. The meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence was actually fixed for 2nd July 1990. At the admission stage counter has been filed on behalf of contesting Respondent Mahendrapal Singh to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed, and so the present writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the court. 2. List has been revised, counsel for the Petitioner is present. However, no one is present on behalf of contesting Respondent No. 3. Standing counsel is present on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged only one point in this respect. It has been argued that in view of the specific provision of Section 15(3) of the U.P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, the meeting was to be held not later than 27th April. 1990 and the meeting having been held on 2nd July 1990 the entire proceedings for consideration of the motion of no confidence are vitiated. Reliance has been placed on an unreported decision of this Court bearing writ petition No. 11791 of 1990, Prabha Shankar Palival v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 6th August 1991. 4. For the purpose of deciding controversy raised in this writ petition it will be useful to quote the relevant part of Section 15(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 which runs as follows: (3) The Collector shall thereupon-- (i) convene a meeting of the Kshetra Samiti for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Kshetra Samiti on a date 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, and (ii) give to the members of the kshetra samiti notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation : In computing the period of thirty days specified in this sub section, the period during which a stay order, if any, issued by a competent court on a petition filed against the motion made under this section is in force plus such further time as may be required in the issue of fresh notices of the meeting to the members, shall be excluded. 5. For the purpose of finding out as to whether any benefit could be given under the 'explanation to Section 15(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 time was granted to produce the original record pertaining to this case. The original record has been produced by the standing counsel before us and we have examined the same. From the perusal of the record it looks that a hunger strike was resorted by some members of the Kshetra Samiti and on 12th June, 1990 nine members gave a representation to the District Magistrate, Bareilly bringing to his notice that an indefinite hunger strike is going on since 11th June 1990 on the ground that no legal action has been taken on the notice which has been given on 27th March, 1990 for bringing a motion of no confidence against the Pramukh of Bhaujipura Kshettra Samiti, Bareilly. It is on this that the District Magistrate, Bareilly on 13th June, 1990 passed the following order: Dinank 2 July 1990 ke liye nirdharit kiya jata hai. Vilamb ke liye bhi uttardayitwa nishchit kiya jave. sd. Illegible 13-6-90" 6. From the aforesaid order passed on 13th June, 1990 it is clear that date of 2nd July have been fixed on the representations made by 9 persons and the authority fixing the date was also conscious of the fact that the meeting has not been held within the stipulated time and for that purpose had directed that responsibility be fixed on the person who are responsible for the delay. A bare perusal of the mandatory provision of Section 15(3) would show that so far as the notice which has been given on 27th March, 1990 a meeting could be held only after 27th April, 1990. A bare perusal of the mandatory provision of Section 15(3) would show that so far as the notice which has been given on 27th March, 1990 a meeting could be held only after 27th April, 1990. As far as the representation which has been given on 12th June, 1990 and has signed by 9 persons, that could not be treated as a valid notice u/s 15(3) of Adhiniyam, 1961 in as much as the notice was not signed by at least half of the total members of the Kshettra Samiti i.e. 47 members. The fixing of date 2nd July 1990 on the aforesaid notice dated 12th June, 1990 could not be in consonance with provisions of Section 15(2) and (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1961. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the meeting which has been held on 2nd July 1990 is not a valid meeting and the entire proceedings held in the aforesaid meeting arc liable to be quashed. It is however, being made clear that it will be open for the members to move another motion of no confidence in case they gave notice in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 15(2) of the U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961. 7. Before parting in this case we may observe that a very valuable right which has been conferred on the members of the Kshettra Samiti could not be utilised because of the inaction of the competent authority who was to take a decision in this matter. This fact is also evident from the order which has been passed on 13th June, 1990 in which the competent authority while fixing date has ordered responsibility be fixed on the person who was responsible for causing delay. The original record has been produced before us and it does not appear that any action in this matter has been taken in our opinion this is a very serious matter and a motion of no confidence which is initiated by requisite number of members cannot be allowed to become infructuous only because of inaction of competent authority who has to fix a date within thirty days of the giving of the of the notice of motion of no confidence. A copy of our judgment will, therefore, be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. forthwith for taking appropriate action in this matter and also to issue appropriate directions so that such lapse does not occur in future. 8. For the reasons stated above the present writ petition is allowed and the entire proceedings of meeting held on 2nd July 1990 are quashed. However, looking in the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.