JUDGMENT The short submission made by the petitioner in this petition is that while holding election to the office of the President and Vice-President to Nagar Panchayats, Kailaras proper notice was not given, and that election was held in breach of the provisions dealing with the method and manner in which a meeting is to be convened. It is not disputed that the petitioner did take part in the proceedings and was ultimately unsuccessful in the battle of ballot. In view of the provisions contained in Article 243-Z (g) of the Constitution, the matter can only be agitated in an election petition. In view of this constitutional bar, the present petition is not maintainable. See : Khumano Bai v. State of M.P., 1995 MPLJ 67 . Apart from this, the Supreme Court in K. Narasibial v. H.C. Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SC 330 , has categorically held that merely because short notice is given, is no ground to interfere with the result of the election. It was observed : "It is necessary to remember that the main object of giving the notice is to make it possible for the councilors to so arrange their other business as to be able to attend the meeting. For an ordinary general meeting the notice provided is of seven clear days. That is expected to give enough time for the purpose. But a lesser period -- of three clear days -- is considered sufficient for ''special general meetings" generally. The obvious reason for providing a shorter period of such meetings is that these are considered more important meetings and Councilors are expected to make it convenient to attend these meetings even at the cost of some inconvenience to themselves. Where the special general meeting is to dispose of some matter of great urgency it is considered that a period of even less than three clear days' notice would be sufficient." *** *** *** "We, are, therefore, of opinion that the fact that some of the Councilors received less than three clear days' notice of the meeting did not by itself make the proceedings of the meeting or the resolution passed there invalid. These would be invalid only if the proceedings were prejudicially affected by such irregularity. As already stated, nineteen of the twenty Councilors attended the meeting. Of these 19, 15 voted in favour, of the resolution of no-confidence against the appellant. These would be invalid only if the proceedings were prejudicially affected by such irregularity. As already stated, nineteen of the twenty Councilors attended the meeting. Of these 19, 15 voted in favour, of the resolution of no-confidence against the appellant. There is thus absolutely no reason for thinking that the proceedings of the meeting were prejudicially affected by the "irregularity in the service of notice." Besides, the petitioner took part in the proceedings. As such, this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 250/-.