ORDER M.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice on the basis of which no-confidence motion is to be convened on 15th September, 1991. 2. The petitioner was elected as pradhan in the 1988 and since then he has been functioning. 3. On 12th August, 1991 five members of the Goan Sabha, Sathni singned a notice as required under S. 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act read with Rule 33B of the Rules framed thereunder and delivered the same to the prescribed Authority. 4. On the same day, the prescribed Authority passed an order fixing 9th September, 1991 for considering the motion of no-confidence. 5. The meeting scheduled to be held on 9th September, 1991 was adjourned on account of law and order situation. But the next date was not fixed. 6. On 10th September, 1991 the District Panchayat Officer issued a fresh notice fixing 15th September, 1991 for considering the motion of no confidence. 7. The question to be considered is whether the meeting scheduled to be held on 15th September will be in accordance with law and the notice dated 10-9-1991 is valid. 8. Section 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act reads as under : "14. Removal of pradhan or up-Pradhan : 1. The Gram Sabha may, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose of which at least 15 days' previous notice shall be given, remove the pradhan by a majority of two-third of the members present and voting. 2. A meeting for the removal of a pradhan shall not be convened within one year of his election. 3. If the motion is not taken up for want of quorum or fails for lack of requisite majority at the meeting, no subsequent meeting for the removal of the same pradhan shall be convened within a year of the date of the previous meeting. 4. Subject to the provisions of this section, the procedure for the removal of a pradhan, including that to be followed at such meeting, shall be such as may be prescribed." 9-10. This section empowers the Gaon Sabha to remove the pradhan or uppradhan, if the motion is carried on by a majority of two third of the members. This court has to examine the scope of "15 days previous notice." 11. There is no dispute that the provisions of S. 14 are mandatory in nature. This section empowers the Gaon Sabha to remove the pradhan or uppradhan, if the motion is carried on by a majority of two third of the members. This court has to examine the scope of "15 days previous notice." 11. There is no dispute that the provisions of S. 14 are mandatory in nature. Non-compliance of the rigid conditions will invalidate the meeting. This Section contemplates that at least 15 days previous notice shall be given before convening the meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion. `The pharase' at least 15 days' previous notice shall be given excludes the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting. 12. In the case of Yadunath Pandey v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, 1986 All CJ 617 a Division Bench of this Court has held that while calculating the period of fifteen days both first and last dates have to be excluded. S. 14 provides that there should be 15 days' clear notice and Rule 33 provides that the prescribed Authority shall convene a meeting of the Gaon Sabha under S. 14 of the Act on a date to be fixed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. 13. Rule 33B prescribes the procedure to be followed for removal of the pradhan or Up-pradhan. It provides that a written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of a pradhan under S. 14 of the Act shall be necessary. It shall be signed by not less than half of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha and shall state the reasons for moving the motion and it shall be delivered in person at least by five members signing the notice to the prescribed Authority. 14. The prescribed Authority shall thereafter fix a date which shall not be later than thirty days from the receipt of the notice. 15. Applying the said provision of the Act to the present case after the meeting was adjourned on 5th September, 1991 fresh notice was issued on 10th September, 1991, fixing 15th September. 1991. Thus fifteen days' clear notice has not been given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the notice is invalid and no motion of no-confidence can be carried out on the basis of the same. 16. 1991. Thus fifteen days' clear notice has not been given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the notice is invalid and no motion of no-confidence can be carried out on the basis of the same. 16. After hewing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the' learned Standing Counsel, 1 am satisfied that the meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence which is scheduled to be held on 15th September, 1991 on the basis of the notice dated 10th September, 1991 is not in accordance with law. Notice dated 10th September, 1991 itself is invalid and accordingly it is quashed. 17. With the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The notice dated 10-9-1991 is invalid.