PALOK BASN, J. Sohan Singh has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari should issue quashing the impugned notice dated 25th January, 1996 passed by the Secretary, Cane Development Society Ltd. Nagina, district Bijnot (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). The further prayer is that the respondents, i. e. , the District Magistrate, Prescribed Authority under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagina, Bijnore be commanded by a writ of mandamus not to hold any meeting in pursuance of the notice which had been fixed on 8-2-1996. Admittedly this meeting was adjourned to 22-2-1996 whereafter an interim order has been passed by this Court staying the meeting, on entertaining this writ petition. 2. When this writ petition was filed on 2-2-1996 the learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties was granted time to file counter-affidavit of obtain instructions and inform the Court about the actual date of the notice or the order of the District Magistrate calling the meeting. On 7-2- 1996 when this matter came up it was observed : "it is said that notice of this writ petition having been already given on 31-1-1996 the learned Standing Counsel put a blank when the case was taken up day before yesterday as well as yesterday. As a last resort twenty-four hours further time was granted to contact the opposite parties officers and obtain instructions and inform the Court accordingly when the case was scheduled to be taken up, i. e. , today. Sri S. G. Hasnain, learned Standing Counsel has informed the Court that he made attempts to send Fax message to the opposite parties and also to contract them on telephone but he failed. Under the circumstances, there is no alternative but to act upon tentatively relying upon the affidavit sworn along with writ petition as also the supplementary affidavit filed on 6-2-1996. " Thereafter In the interest of justice an order was passed staying the said meeting scheduled to be held on 8-2-1996. 3. Under the circumstances, there is no alternative but to act upon tentatively relying upon the affidavit sworn along with writ petition as also the supplementary affidavit filed on 6-2-1996. " Thereafter In the interest of justice an order was passed staying the said meeting scheduled to be held on 8-2-1996. 3. In the meantime, however, Sri Devendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in which a clear averment was made in paragraph No. 3 that the petitioner has neither received the copy of the meeting of no-confidence nor he has received the letter of Sub- Divisional Magistrate dated 24-1-1996. In paragraph No. 4 thereof it has been averred that the petitioner only received a notice dated 25-1-1996 on 27-1-1996 which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. Before the case was taken up on the last date Sri Shashi Nandan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 3, I. E. Secretary, Cane Development Society Ltd. Nagina, district Bijnor. Sri Shasl Nandan Informed the Court that he was filing only the certified copies of the orders of the District Magistrate which were passed, one on the application to convene a meeting of no confidence motion against the petitioner and the other on a separate paper. He has been permitted to do so. As further requested by Sri Shashi Nandan, he has permitted to argue the matter without filing counter- affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No. 3. Likewise, Sri Tej Ram, learned Standing Counsel has also argued the matter on behalf of other opposite parties without filing any counter-affidavit. 5. As jointly requested by the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the time of admission. 6. The admitted facts are that the petitioner Sohan Singh was elected Director of the Cane Development Society Ltd. Nagina, district Bijnor (for short, the Society) on 29-11-1994 and then was elected the Chairman of the Society on 30-11-1994. Omitting the other averments in the writ petition which are not necessary for the decision of the prayers noted above it may be stated that the petitioners case is that on 27-1-1996 he received a notice for holding a meeting for considering a no confidence motion against the petitioner which was to be convened on 8-2-1996. Omitting the other averments in the writ petition which are not necessary for the decision of the prayers noted above it may be stated that the petitioners case is that on 27-1-1996 he received a notice for holding a meeting for considering a no confidence motion against the petitioner which was to be convened on 8-2-1996. A copy of the notice was filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The original as received by the petitioner was also taken on record and has been put under sealed cover. Since the notice and the contents are now admitted to Sri Shashi Nandan, the Office is directed to remove the sealed cover and main tain the original notice as a part of the record. 7. The notice dated 24-1-1996 is admitted one which has been issued by the Secretary of the Society. Translated into English the notice would read as under (Translation by Court) : "in compliance with the letter dated 24-1-1996 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagina a meeting of the Members will be held on 8-2-1996 at 11 a. m. in Tehsil Nagina for considering the no confidence motion regarding the Chairman of the Society (Ganna Samiti ). "therefore all the members of the Board of Directors Nagina are requested to reach on the fixed date, time and place and participate in the meeting. Dt. 25-1-1996 Sd/- Om Singh, Secretary, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Nagina (Bijnor) Copies to : 1. All the Members of the Board of Directors of the Society be informed for participation in the meeting. 2. S. D. M. concerned to show compliance of his letter dated 24-1-1996. " 8. Before proceeding further some facts have to be settled. The certified copies which have been filed by Sri Shashi Nandan purport to be the orders of the District Magistrate. There exists two hand written orders on the application itself which was moved for initiating no confidence motion and the other one is said to be a separate order. Reliance was placed on the order existing on the left margin of the application moved before the District Magistrate for convening no confidence motion. The substance of the said order of the District Magistrate is that the matter be registered and the S. D. M. be directed to convene the meeting on 8-2-1996 in Tehsil Nagina of the Board of Directors for taking up the no- confidence motion. The substance of the said order of the District Magistrate is that the matter be registered and the S. D. M. be directed to convene the meeting on 8-2-1996 in Tehsil Nagina of the Board of Directors for taking up the no- confidence motion. The alleged initials of the District Magistrate bears the date 8-1-1996. Fortunately the certified copy is the photostat copy of the application for moving the motion which includes the hand written orders of the District Magistrate. At the right hand side top of the document there was an order of the District Magistrate which has been scored out by hand and initials of the District Magistrate exist at one place. If one makes effort to read the cut out order, there is no doubt that it is substan tially different from what is written on the left side margin now. It is unlikely that the District Magistrate would pass two orders on the same application on the same day. Under the circumstances, therefore, though the left hand margin incorporates the alleged order of the District Magis trate dated 8-1-1996, the date, timing and said nothings by the District Magistrate do not inspire confidence. However, be that as it may, what is not clear is as to what happened between alleged date of the order i. e. , 8-1-1996 and 24-1-1996 i. e. , when the S. D. M. issued notices to the members for participating in the no confidence motion. If the District Magistrate had himself sent the original order to the S. D. M. , the S. D. M. would have no courage to detain the original order with him for such a long period. Therefore, the original order purported to have been passed on 8-1-1996 loses significance of its date for the fact that it was communicated only on 24-1-1996 and for all practical purposes, the order saw the light of the day for communication to the Board of Directors only on 24-1-1996 and not on 8-1-1996 as is attempted to be argued now by Sri Shashi Nandan. 9. 9. During the course of arguments Sri Devendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised as also averred by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the supplementary affidavit, that but for the notice dated 24-1-1996 no order of the District Magistrate allegedly 8-1-1996 has ever been communicated to the petitioner or any member of Director. Under the circumstances the Court proceeds on the basis that for the purpose of convening the meeting to consider No Confidence Motion, notice has been issued on 24-1-1996 and the meeting had been convened on 8-2-1996. 10. Having settled this factual position, the legal provision may now be examined. Sri Devendra Pratap has placed reliance on the three deci sions reported in Gyan Singh v. The District Magistrate Bijnor, AIR 1975 All 315 ; Yadu Nath Pandey v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Ballla, 1986 ACJ 1459 and Vidyadhar Tewari v. District Magistrate, Deoria, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 228. 11. In substance the arguments advanced by Sri Devendra Pratap is that the aforesaid notice clearly violates the provisions contained in Rule 458 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules framed under the Act. For ready reference the aforesaid Rule 458 has to be quoted : "458 (1) On receipt of the notice of no confidence motion as provid ed in Rules 456 and 457, the specified authority shall fix such time, date and place as he may consider suitable for holding a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed no confidence ; Provided that at least thirty days notice shall be given for such meeting. (2) The notice for meeting under sub-rule (1) shall also provide that in the event of the no confidence motion being duly carried, election of the new Chairman or jjjvice-Chairman, as the case may be shall also be held in the same meeting. " 12. It was strenuously argued that the proviso makes it mandatory fo fining 30 days notice for holding such a meeting to consider the pro posal for no confidence motion. The observations and the ratio in the three decisions leave no manner of doubt that thirty days notice was necessary for calling a meeting. 13. " 12. It was strenuously argued that the proviso makes it mandatory fo fining 30 days notice for holding such a meeting to consider the pro posal for no confidence motion. The observations and the ratio in the three decisions leave no manner of doubt that thirty days notice was necessary for calling a meeting. 13. Shri Shashi Nandan on the other hand has placed reliance only on two decisions Brijendra Bahadur Singh v. District Magistrate, Gonda, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 248 and Gopal Tewari v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoria, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 904. 14. Shi Shashi Nandan, argued that the meeting must be allowed to be held and then only it can be judged whether any prejudice stands caused to the petitioner or not. It was argued that if all members are present in the meeting, it has to be held that notice to them is sufficient and thus no interference is called at this stage by this Court. This argument has to be rejected for two reasons. First, the provisions in Rule 458 are mandatory, Second, an illegality in the notice must be judged on the materials existing and not after holding of the meeting itself, That would be putting the cart before the horse which is not permissible. 15. Coming to the cases cited by Sri Shashi Nandan, it may be mentioned that in so far as the latter case is concerned it was dealing with a matter wherein the language used in Rule 33-B framed under the Panchayat Raj Act came up for consideration. Suffice it to say that the language of the said Rule is totally different from the language of Rule 458 which has been noted above. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid authority does not lend support to the arguments of Sri Shashi Nandan that Rule 458 is not mandatory and whether knowledge stands conveyed to the Directors or not, can be physically tested on the day of the meeting. 16. In the first case relied upon by Sri Shashi Nandan St was not known what happened in between the date of the notice and the convening of the meeting. 16. In the first case relied upon by Sri Shashi Nandan St was not known what happened in between the date of the notice and the convening of the meeting. It was observed by the Division Bench that on the facts of the said case it was not necessary to go into the issue so long as It was held that the District Magistrates order did give seven days notice but the inter magnum delay was not to determine the fate of the origin of the notice. Consequently on the facts of the present case the aforesaid decision is not applicable. 17. At this stage the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Amir Ahmad v. Ram Niwas Agrawal, AIR 1994 SC 1145 , are relevant on the point. It has been observed that "a Municipal body is an instance of local self-Government. It is a statutory body. Its actions are governed and regulated by a statute. In the absence of a clear finding that the proceeding of the said meeting convened under Section 87-A have been vitiated by unauthorised interference, duress or undue influence as the case may be, the proceedings could not have been declared vitiated, i. e. void. 18. The law, therefore, is that thirty days notice has to be given. The Co-operative Society is also statutory authority and has to act within the frame work of the Act and the Rules. The District Magistrate has played with the Rules. He or the S. D. M. had no reason to keep the notice with him if the D. M. had really passed the orders on 8-1-1996. He should have known that the orders have to be carried to the Directors concerned within time allowed. On the facts noted above it is impossible to hold that orders for calling the meeting were infact passed on 8-1-1996. Notice is admittedly dated 25-1- 1996. Hence thirty days notice has not been given. Therefore, the notice is vitiated. 19. In view of what has been stated above the aforesaid notice dated 25-1-1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has to be quashed. 20. The result, therefore, is that this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The notice dated 25-1-1996 is quashed and no meeting shall be held in pursuance of the said notice. Petition allowed. .