JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. In this writ petition, one Ram Dass put in appearance and filed an application on 29th April, 1993 praying for the impleadment which was allowed and he was directed to be impleaded as Respondent no 4. Alongwith this application he also filed a short counter affidavit oil 21st May, 1993. Thereafter aforesaid Ram Dass filed a supplementary affidavit dated 7th May, 1993 annexing therewith result of the no confidence motion dated 2nd May, 1993, Petitioner also filed two supplementary affidavit dated 27th April, 1993 and 29th April, 1993. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and learned Counsel for newly impleaded Respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. 3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was elected Up-Pradhan of the village Fatehullahpur, Block Sahpau, district Mathura in the year 1988 and one Ram Dayal was elected Pradhan of the village. However, Ram Dayal died on 14th March, 1993 and thus office of the Pradhan fell vacant and u/s 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, (herein-after referred to as 'Act') petitioner claimed that he is entitled to officiate as Pradhan during the vacancy. On this District Panchayat Raj Officer wrote a letter dated 2nd April, 1993 to the son of late Ram Dayal to handover charge to petitioner. However this attempt on the part of the petitioner generated the dispute and on 3rd April, 1993 no confidence motion was moved for removal of the petitioner. On this no confidence motion a notice was issued on 6th April, 1993 fixing 16th April, 1993 to hold a meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion. This notice was challenged in a writ petition before this Court. As the notice was not for the clear 15 days as required u/s 14 of the Act, the writ petition was allowed on the short question by order dated 13th April, 1993. The notice was quashed leaving it open to the authorities to issue a fresh notice. A fresh notice was issued on the no confidence motion on 16th April, 1993 fixing 2nd May, 1993 as the date for meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the motion. This notice is Annexure-15 to the writ, petition which has been challenged in this writ petition. A fresh notice was issued on the no confidence motion on 16th April, 1993 fixing 2nd May, 1993 as the date for meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the motion. This notice is Annexure-15 to the writ, petition which has been challenged in this writ petition. In the writ petition the challenge is that the notice was issued on 16th April, 1993. However it was served on petitioner on 21st April, 1993 and as it is not for clear 15 days, the notice is illegal and liable to be quashed. Supplementary affidavits have been filed by petitioner to substantiate this plea that the notice was not for clear 15 days as required u/s 14 of the Act and as mandatory provisions have been violated the same is liable to be quashed. In the short counter affidavit filed by Sri Ram Dass, Respondent No. 4, it has been averred that the notice for holding meeting on 2nd May, 1993, was served on members of Gaon Panchayat through Chaukidar Moti Ram on 16th April, 1993 itself. A true copy of the notice and the certificate of Moti Ram have been filed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the counter affidavit. As already stated Ram Dass has already filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith result of the meeting held on 2nd may, 1993. However, at the time of hearing notice has been challenged solely on a fresh ground not raised in the writ petition. That ground is that the motion of no confidence was signed by the members of the Gaon Sabha and it was presented by 5 members of the Gaon Sabha; whereas as petitioner is Up-Pradhan the motion of no confidence should have been signed by not less than one half of the total members of Gaon Panchayat and which should have been presented by at least five members signing the notice to the Prescribed Authority. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as notice and motion were not filed by the members of the Gaon Panchayat it was no motion at all and the entire proceedings on its basis are wholly illegal and are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as notice and motion were not filed by the members of the Gaon Panchayat it was no motion at all and the entire proceedings on its basis are wholly illegal and are liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 11-C particularly Sub-section (3; of the Act and has submitted that Rule 33-B is subject to the provisions of Section 11-C read with Section 14 of the Gaon Sabha should be read as Gaon Panchayat. 5. The fact that the notice and motion of no confidence was signed by the members of the Gaon Sabha and it was also presented by members of the Gaon Sabha is fully borne' out from the impugned notice itself. Learned Counsel for the Respondents could not dispute this factual position. Since question raised in purely legal and goes to the root of the matter it shall be in the interest of justice to consider and examine it. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also no objection against considering and deciding this question. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for Respondents is that provisions of Rule 33-B (1) is very clear and so far as the notice and the motion for removal of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are concerned they have to be signed by the members of the Gaon Sabha should be presented by at least five members signing the notice. Learned Counsel has submitted that the legislature in its wisdom left it for a larger body to give written notice of intention to move motion for removal of Pradhan as well as Up-Pradhan but it has been left for being considered by smaller body known as Gaon Panchayat which is in fact executive committee as mentioned in Section 12(1) of the Act. Sri Ashok Khare has also submitted that as the motion of no confidence has been carried out by a thumping majority, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is liable to be thrown out on this ground alone. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in case of Om Prakash Yadav v. Collector, Etah, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 238. Learned Standing counsel has also submitted that as the motion of no confidence has been carried out, this Court should not interfere. 7. The writ petition is liable to be thrown out on this ground alone. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in case of Om Prakash Yadav v. Collector, Etah, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 238. Learned Standing counsel has also submitted that as the motion of no confidence has been carried out, this Court should not interfere. 7. I have seriously considered the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. For appreciating the legal position under the Act with regard to no confidence motion for removal of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan it would be appreciate to examine relevant provisions at this place Section 11-C (1) of the Act provides that Up-Pradhan shall be elected by the members of the Gaon Panchayat from amongst themselves la such manner as may be prescribed. It also provides that if a Gaon Panchayat fails to so elect an Up-Pradhan within the time fixed by or under the rules in that behalf, the Prescribed Authority may nominate a Up-Pradhan any member of the Gaon Panchayat, and the person so nominated shall be deemed to have duly elected. Sub-section (2) of Section 11-C of the Act provides about the term of office of the Up-Pradhan elected or nominated under Sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) of section 11-C makes a provision of Section 14 applicable for removal of Pradhan. Relevant portions of Section 11-C of the Act is being reproduced, below: 11-C (1) The Up-Pradhan shall be elected by the members of the Gaon Panchayat from amongst themselves in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided.... (2).... (3) The provisions of Section 14 shall apply to the removal of Up-Pradhan as they apply to the removal of Pradhan with the substitution of references to Gaon Sabha and Pradhan by references to Gaon Panchayat and Up-Pradhan respectively. From Perusal of the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 11-C of the Act it is clear that while applying Section 14 for removal of Up-Pradhan the references of Gaon Sabha and Pradhan have to be substituted by Gaon Panchayat and Up-Pradhan. Section 14 of the Act is being reproduced below: 14. Removal of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan-(1) The Gaon Sabha may, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days' previous notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Section 14 of the Act is being reproduced below: 14. Removal of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan-(1) The Gaon Sabha may, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days' previous notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds 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. A combined reading of Section 11-C and Section 14 of the Act leaves no doubt that at every place where ever the words Gaon Sabha and Pradhan have been used they should be read as Gaon Panchayat and Up-Pradhan. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act is also material to be considered which says subject to the provisions of this section the procedure for removal of Pradhan including that to be followed at such meeting, shall be such as may be prescribed. It means that rules framed are also subject to the provisions of Section 14 read with Section 11-C of the Act. Rule 33-B provides procedure for removal of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. However Rule 33-B nowhere uses Gaon Panchayat as provided in Section 11-C read with Section 14 of the Act, which has given rise to the present controversy. The question for determination is whether in Rule 33-B also word 'Gaon Sabha' should be substituted as word 'Gaon Panchayat' while applying the rule in case of removal of Up-Pradhan. In my opinion, answer to the question should be in affirmative. Section 11-C read with Section 14 of the Act leaves no doubt that at every place in Section 14 where Gaon Sabha has been used, it should be read as Gaon Panchayat the procedure provided under Rule 33-B is subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. In my opinion, answer to the question should be in affirmative. Section 11-C read with Section 14 of the Act leaves no doubt that at every place in Section 14 where Gaon Sabha has been used, it should be read as Gaon Panchayat the procedure provided under Rule 33-B is subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid clear provisions contained in Section 11-C and Section 14 of the Act, in Rule 33-B also word 'Gaon Sabha' should be read as 'Gaon Panchayat' and it cannot be accepted that the rule providing procedure should be interpreted differently than the main provisions in this behalf provided in the Act. If the provisions of Rule 33-B of the Act are applied with the words 'Gaon Sabha' in case of removal of Up-Pradhan also, in my, opinion it shall be inconsistent to the provisions contained in Section 11-C (3) and Section 14(4) of the Act. Normally while interpreting a provision the word used should be given the same meaning throughout for interpreting the provisions of section or the Rules framed thereunder except in cases where the language is very clear and suggests to use a different meaning. If Rule 33-B is applied with the word 'Gaon Sabha' in case of removal of Up-Pradhan also as suggested it shall lead to anomalous and absurd position which could never have been intention of legislature as it shall be inconsistent to the main provisions contained in the Act. In my opinion, after reading of the relevant provisions of Section 11-C of the Act and Rule 33-B there cannot be any other conclusion except that Rule 33-B while being applied in cases of removal of Up-Pradhan at every place word Gaon Sabha should be read as Gaon Panchayat. If the application of Rule 33-B is considered in the present case with tie aforesaid change, it is clear that the notice and motion far removal of Up-Pradhan was not signed by one half of the total members of the Gaon Panchayat nor the same was delivered by members of Gaon Panchayat before Prescribed Authority. The fact is very clear from the impugned notice itself. The fact is very clear from the impugned notice itself. There is no averment from any side that it was signed by members of the Gaon Panchayat and was delivered to the Prescribed Authority by five members who signed it, in absence of which in my opinion, there was no motion as contemplated under Rule 33-B (1) of the Rules. The notice and the motion signed and delivered by members of the Gaon Sabha cannot be said-to be in compliance of Rule 33-B (1) in respect of the petitioner who is Up-Pradhan. In my opinion, as there was no legal and valid motion for consideration of the entire proceedings subsequent there to were also illegal and cannot be sustained. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, has, however, placed strong reliance on Om Prakash Yadav's case (supra). I have considered this case and in my opinion, facts are entirely different. In the said case notice for removal was challenged on the ground that there was no 15 days clear notice as required u/s 15(3) (ii) of U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961. However the court after considering the materials oh record repelled the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and recorded a finding that the notice was despatched on 7th July, 1990 and there was a clear 15 days notice. After recording this finding the court said that as the motion is carried out by thumping majority it is not a fit case for interference. In my opinion, facts of the present case are entirely different as there was no legal and valid motion for considering before the members of the Gaon Panchayat. The provisions of Section 11-C (3) read with Section 14 of the Act are not mere formalities. They have to be applied strictly as it involves removal of elected office bearers. They cannot be loosely interpreted nor can be loosely applied. The strict application of the provisions is essential for the proper functioning of democratic institution at the gross root level. 10. The facts of the present case reveal that the petitioner was elected Up-Pradhan in 1988, the confidence in him was never doubted by the members of the Gaon Panchayat. Members confidence in him stood shaken for the first time only when he claimed his right to function as Pradhan after death of elected Pradhan. In the present case, in my opinion, Respondent Nos. Members confidence in him stood shaken for the first time only when he claimed his right to function as Pradhan after death of elected Pradhan. In the present case, in my opinion, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to act in accordance with law. They failed to apply the provisions of Rule 33-B with necessary changes as provided u/s 11-C read with Section 14 of the Act In my opinion, this writ petition must succeed. As the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the answer oft the first question and there was no legal and valid motion for consideration, in my opinion, it is not necessary to examine the question whether there was 15 days clear notice as alleged in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavits filed by petitioner and disputed by the Respondents' in the counter affidavit. 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also referred the cases of Om Prakash v. State of U.P. 1984 UPLBEC 672, Yadunath Pandey v. The Distt. Panchayat Raj Officer, Distt. Ballia (DB), 1986 UPLBEC 632, Devi Singh v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari Aligarh 1987 UPLBEC 745, (DB) Jayantri Prasad Misra v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 166 (DB) and Gopal Tewari v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoria (FB) (1991) 2 UPLBEC 904. I have considered all the cases and aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable on facts and there is nothing on which basis the view I have taken above, may be changed. 12. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 16th April 1993 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) and the resolution of no confidence dated 2nd May, 1993 filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs.