ORDER 1. The petitioner, the President of the Municipal Board, Sikendra Rao, on 24th April, 1991 presented this petition with the prayers that the notices dated 4th April, 1991 and 12th April, 1991 sent by the Additional District Magistrate to the effect that the motion of non-confidence as against the petitioner shall be considered by the members of the Board on 25th April, 1991, may be quashed. 2. This Court on 24th April, 1991 passed an interim order to the following effect : "If the motion of no confidence against the petitioner is carried out in the meeting to be held on 25th April. 1991 it shall not be given effect to till 12th May, 1991 provided the order is not modified before that date." 3. The motion of non-confidence as against the petitioner was put to vote on 25th April, 1991 and it was declared that the same had been carried. An application seeking the amendment of the writ petition has been filed and the prayer is that the proceedings held on 25th April, 1991 may be quashed. 4. The petitioner had raised the factual controversy that the notice of the meeting had not been issued by the District Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate, who was not empowered to act under S. 87A of the U.'P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) performed the job which, under the statute, the District Magistrate alone could perform. In the ends of justice, this Court directed the Chief Standing Counsel to produce the relevant record. That has been done. We have perused the same. From a perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the steps taken were these. On 11th March, 1991 a motion of non-confidence was presented before the District Magistrate by more than two members. It was purported to have been signed by 14 members. That has been done. We have perused the same. From a perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the steps taken were these. On 11th March, 1991 a motion of non-confidence was presented before the District Magistrate by more than two members. It was purported to have been signed by 14 members. On 30th March, 1991 the District Magistrate sent a communication to the District Judge, Aligarh stating therein that 14 members of the Board had presented a motion of non-confidence against the petitioner on 11th March, 1991: in accordance with S. 87A(1), Civil Judicial Officer had to preside over the meeting wherein the motion of non-confidence was to be considered and, therefore, he (the District Judge) was requested to nominate some Civil Judicial Officer who may preside over the meeting which may be held on any date between 10th April and 14th April, 1991 at 11 a.m. at the office of the Board. On 2nd April. 1991 Sri Satish Kumar, First Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh sent a communication to the District Magistrate stating therein that with reference to the communication dated 30th March, 1991 of the District Magistrate, the District Judge had nominated him as the Presiding Officer. The Additional Civil Judge drew the attention of the District Magistrate to the provisions as contained in S. 87A of the Act and requested him (the District Magistrate) to take necessary steps in accordance with law. On the receipt of the said communication, the District Magistrate. on that very communication, fixed 13th April. 1991 as the date of the meeting for consideration of the motion of non-confidence. He also directed that the notice may be issued. He also directed that necessary information may be sent to the First Additional Civil Judge. On 5th April, 1991 the District Magistrate sent a communication to the First Additional Civil Judge informing 1991 All. L. J.151 IX (2) him that with reference to his (Additional Civil Judge's) letter dated 2nd April, 1991 he had fixed 13th April, 1991 as the date of the meeting to be held at the office of the Board at 11.00 a.m. Notices were sent to the individual members, including the petitioner, under the signatures of the Additional District Magistrate. Public notice of the meeting was also effected under the signatures of the Additional District Magistrate. On 12th April. Public notice of the meeting was also effected under the signatures of the Additional District Magistrate. On 12th April. 1991 the Additional Civil Judge informed the District Magistrate that he would not be in a position to preside over the meeting on 13th April. 1991 and instead he had fixed 25th April, 1991 as the next date of the meeting to be held at 11.00 a.m. He, therefore, requested the District Magistrate to get necessary notices etc. issued. Copy of this communication was sent by the Additional Civil Judge to the petitioner also. On 12th April, 1991 the Additional District Magistrate put up a note before the District Magistrate inviting his attention to the communication of the Additional Civil Judge by which he had postponed the meeting from 13th April to 25th April, 1991 and had fixed 11.00 a.m. as the time at which the meeting would be held. He also requested the District Magistrate that, if he considered proper, necessary orders to be passed that the meeting of 13th April, has been postponed and 25th April has been fixed as the next date of the meeting. It may also be indicated that the meeting will take place at 11.00 am. on that day. The District Magistrate on 13th April appended his signature on the said note of the Additional District Magistrate. On 13th April. 1991 the Additional District Magistrate issued a notice, inter alia. stating therein that the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 13th April, 1991 at 11.00 am. will now be held on 25th April. 1991 at 11.00 a.m. Copy of this communication was sent by the Additional District Magistrate to the District Information Officer with the request that wide publicity be given to the said notice in the newspaper. Copy of the said communication was also sent to the petitioner and also to the Executive Officer of the Board. It may be stated here that the notice dated 13th April, 1991 made it clear that the Additional District Magistrate was acting under the orders of the District Magistrate. 5. Shri R. H. Zaidi has argued this petition on behalf of the petitioner at length. He has advanced the following submissions : (1) The District Magistrate had not sent the notice himself; (2) The publication of the notice as enjoined in the second part of sub-sec. 5. Shri R. H. Zaidi has argued this petition on behalf of the petitioner at length. He has advanced the following submissions : (1) The District Magistrate had not sent the notice himself; (2) The publication of the notice as enjoined in the second part of sub-sec. (3) of S. 87A of the Act was not done by the District Magistrate but by the Additional District Magistrate: (3) The notice dated 12/13 April, 1991 was again not sent by the District Magistrate but by the Additional District Magistrate; and (4) On 8th April, 1991 three existing nominated members had been illegally removed as members of the board and in their place three fresh parsons had been nominated as members f the Board. The participation of these three fresh persons in the meeting held on 25th April. 1991 vitiated the proceedings. 6. The first three submissions are inter-connected. The answer to these submissions will turn upon the language employed by the Legislature in sub-sec. (3) of S. 87A of the Act. This provision is, therefore, being extracted; "(3) The District Magistrate shall then' convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the board, on the date and at the time appointed by him which shall not be earlier than thirty and not later than thirty-five days from the date on which the notice under sub-sec. (2) was delivered to him. He shall send by registered post not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting, a notice of such meeting and of the date and time appointed therefor, to every member of the Board at this place of residence and shall at the same time cause such notice to be published in such manner as he may deem fit. Thereupon every member shall be deemed to have received the notice." 7. We have already indicated that the District Magistrate had convened the meeting for the consideration of motion of non-confidence. He had fixed the date and time of the meeting and he had fixed the verie of the meeting though this act was not [o be done as under sub-sec. (3) the venue of *'~e meeting is fixed as the office of the Board. 8. The argument of Shri Zaidi is that i sub-sec. He had fixed the date and time of the meeting and he had fixed the verie of the meeting though this act was not [o be done as under sub-sec. (3) the venue of *'~e meeting is fixed as the office of the Board. 8. The argument of Shri Zaidi is that i sub-sec. (3) of S. 87A the Legislature has drawn a distinction between the act "to send a notice" and the act of "causing a notice to be sent". He has, therefore, vehemently urged that even if the District Magistrate had authorised the Additional District Magistrate to send notices to the members but had not himself signed the same, there will be non-compliance of the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of S. 87A. We are not impressed with this submission. The dictionary meaning of the word "send" is "to cause or direct to go; despatch, as a messenger; to cause to be conveyed to another place; transmit; forward; to send a letter". On a careful reading of sub-sec. (3) of S. 87A we have no hesitation in taking the view that the word "send" has been used not in a technical sense but in the sense as defined in the dictionary, one such sense being "to cause to issue" (See Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, Encyclopaedic Edition Vol. II column 1144). This controversy is not res integre. In Krishna Chandra Gupta v. Prayag Narain, 1961 All LJ 226 it has been held that neither sub-sec. (3) nor sub-sec. (5) of S. 87A has in providing the notice to be given under its provisions required that the same shall be signed by the District Magistrate personally. The duty laid on the District Magistrate is to cause such notice to be published in the manner he shall deem fit. This condition will be satisfied if the notice is caused to be sent by him in the manner deemed fit by him. The absence of his signatures on the notice has no effect on its validity if it otherwise satisfies the conditions regarding the date, time etc. Moreover, the duty of sending a notice provided in sub-sec. (3) is an administrative act to be done by him. In exercising such acts it is usual that subordinates are deputed to carry out the ministerial part which cannot possibly be done by the superior authority himself. Moreover, the duty of sending a notice provided in sub-sec. (3) is an administrative act to be done by him. In exercising such acts it is usual that subordinates are deputed to carry out the ministerial part which cannot possibly be done by the superior authority himself. The ministerial part which has not been done by the authority itself but has been done by a subordinate in pursuance of the order and direction of the superior authority is to all intents and purposes the act of the superior authority itself which in performing that part acts through its subordinates. We have already indicated that both the occasions namely, when the first meeting was scheduled to be held on 13th April, 1991 and when the second meeting was fixed for 25th April, 1991 the Additional District Magistrate acted under the supervision and direction of the District Magistrate while sending the notices. This decision, therefore, in our opinion, is apposite. 9. Considerable reliance has been placed by the learned counsel upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Tara Chand, AIR 1958 All 374 . This judgment has been rendered by three Hon'ble Judges. It has been emphasised that the first part of sub-sec. (3) of S. 87A which deals with the acts preceding the passing of the motion of non-confidence, is mandatory. The same view has been reiterated by another Five-Judge decision of this Court in the case of Sardar Gyan Singh v. District Magistrate, Bijnor, 1975 All LJ 450 : AIR 1975 All 315 para 8. We have already taken the view that in the instant case, in the eye of law, it shall be treated that the District Magistrate himself sent the notices to the members, including the petitioner. Therefore, these decisions really do not advance the case of the petitioner. 10. Now we come to the last submission. It is an admitted position that on 25th April, 1991 fourteen members of the Board voted in favour of the motion of non-confidence. In paragraph 1 of the writ petition it is stated that the total membership of the Board was 21 on 25th April, 1991. It comprised the President, elected members, ex officio members and the nominated members. It is not in dispute that there were 15 elected, 3 nominated members. In paragraph 1 of the writ petition it is stated that the total membership of the Board was 21 on 25th April, 1991. It comprised the President, elected members, ex officio members and the nominated members. It is not in dispute that there were 15 elected, 3 nominated members. President as one of the members and there were 2 ex officio members who were either a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly. Assuming that the membership of the 3 nominated members had been wrongly cancelled and in their place three persons, who could not be nominated, were made members and these members participated in the meeting held on 25th April, 1991 or the erstwhile three nominated members participated and voted against the motion of non-confidence, the result would have been the same. In any view of the matter, at least 11 members of the Board would have voted against the petitioner and in favour of the motion of non-confidence and the number of 11 would have been more than half of the total number of members of the Board, namely 21. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the exit of the three nominated members and by the incoming of the three fresh nominated members. 11. No other submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner. 12. The petition is dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 24th April, 1991 is hereby discharged. 13. An oral prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of certificate to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 134A of the Constitution. We feel that the question raised in this petition is neither of any general importance nor does the decision of such a question require consideration by the Supreme Court. The certificate prayed for, therefore, is rejected.