Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1925 (ALL)

Poonam v. State of U. P.

2018-09-05

AJIT KUMAR, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Shashi Kant Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs; "(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order/notice dated 11.09.2017 of respondent No. 2 fixing the date as 28.09.2017 for convening the meeting of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, Bijnor to consider 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are as follows; 3. An election of Kshetra Panchayat, Kotwali, Bijnor (in short "Kshetra Panchayat") was held on 29.10.2015, petitioner, Smt. Poonam was declared elected as member of Kshetra Panchayat, Kotwali, Bijnor. Later on, she was elected as Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat on 7.2.2016; total elected members of Kshetra Panchayat were 187 but after the death of two members of Kshetra Panchayat, total strength of Kshetra Panchayat was reduced from 187 to 185. After the change of State Government in Uttar Pradesh, some of the rivals of the petitioner prepared the forged affidavits as well as notice of no-confidence against the petitioner and submitted them before the District Magistrate, Bijnor, Respondent No. 2 on 8.9.2017; Petitioner and the other members of the Kshetra Panchayat received the impugned notices of Respondent No. 2 dated 11.9.2017 on 14.9.2017; along with the said notice dated 11.9.2017, a copy of the motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh was also annexed. 4. As per the impugned notice dated 11.9.2017, the meeting of Kshetra Panchayat was scheduled to be held on 28.9.2017, for considering no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Envelop containing the notice dated 11.9.2017 reveals that the same was dispatched on 13.9.2017. 5. It was further averred in the writ petition that as soon as, the members came to know about the alleged "No Confidence Motion" issued on the basis of forged signatures, 115 members filed their objections before the District Magistrate, Bijnor through application dated 14.09.2017. 6. It was further averred in the writ petition that the envelope containing the impugned notice dated 11.9.2017 fixing the date of meeting for 28.9.2017 for carrying on a motion of No-Confidence against the petitioner shows that the same was dispatched on 13.9.2017. Therefore, if both the days, the initial and the last date are excluded (date of dispatch and date of meeting) that would not give 15 clear days, meaning thereby that only 14 days time were given to the members. Therefore, if both the days, the initial and the last date are excluded (date of dispatch and date of meeting) that would not give 15 clear days, meaning thereby that only 14 days time were given to the members. As per Section 15(3)(ii) of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (in short Act 1961), there must be 15 days clear notice of meeting, as such, the impugned notice dated 11.9.2017 is illegal being in contravention of Section 15(3)(ii) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. 7. It was next pleaded that as the present total member of Kshetra Panchayat, Kotwali, Bijnor is 185, therefore, 93 members are required to sign the valid notice of no-confidence motion. Though notice of no-confidence motion allegedly contains the names and signatures of 106 members but 40 of those members have already filed their affidavits denied having signed the same, therefore, figure comes down to 66 which is not sufficient for initiating the proposed 'No Confidence Motion' as per Section 15(2) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act. 8. It has been further pleaded that out of total members, 26 members have not taken oath as member of Kshettra Panchayat but their names and alleged signatures appear in the notice of no-confidence motion dated 8.9.2017, as such, if the members to any elected body do not subscribe to oath, then they cannot enter upon their office. Therefore, figure of 106 members mentioned in notice of intention for no-confidence motion dated 8.9.2017. comes down further to 38. after excluding those members who had given their affidavits denying their signatures on the notice of motion as well as the members who did not subscribe to oath. 9. It was further pleaded that despite the fact, that the complaint was filed by 42 members alleging that they have not signed any notice to carry out the 'No Confidence Motion', no satisfaction was recorded by the District Magistrate, Bijnor with regard to the genuineness of their signatures. 10. 9. It was further pleaded that despite the fact, that the complaint was filed by 42 members alleging that they have not signed any notice to carry out the 'No Confidence Motion', no satisfaction was recorded by the District Magistrate, Bijnor with regard to the genuineness of their signatures. 10. Per contra, in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit dated 25.7.2018, filed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor, Respondent No. 2, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has concealed the material facts in the writ petition in as much as, the meeting of Block Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor as scheduled for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion' took place on 28.9.2017 wherein out of 123 members, 114 members participated in voting. However, the outcome of the meeting was not given effect to in compliance of the interim directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, on 21.9.2017 in the present writ petition. 11. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that aggrieved by the misconduct and negligence of the petitioner, a notice dated 8.9.2017 on Prapatra-1 duly signed by 104 out of the 185 members, enclosing proposed motion of no confidence against the petitioner as Block Pramukh, was submitted before the District Magistrate, Bijnor on 8.9.2017, through some of the members of Kshettra Panchayat including Respondent Nos. 4 and 6. The aforesaid notice was supported by affidavits of 104 members of Kshettra Panchayat who were signatory to the notice dated 8.9.2017. 12. The Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bijnor by letter No. 2530 dated 11.9.2017 informed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagina to preside over the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat convened on 28.9.2017 at 11 a.m. and make necessary arrangement for the meeting. The notice No. 2529 dated 11.9.2017 along with concerned record was marked to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor for necessary action of sending the notices to the individual members of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor by the modes contemplated under law. 13. The notice No. 2529 dated 11.9.2017 along with concerned record was marked to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor for necessary action of sending the notices to the individual members of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor by the modes contemplated under law. 13. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, it has been further stated that one of the modes of service of notice of "No Confidence Motion" of Kshettra Panchayat is by pasting of the notice on the notice board as required under the Rules framed under Section 237 of the Act, accordingly, the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer forwarded the notice No. 2529 dated 11.9.2017 issued by Collector, Bijnor to the Assistant Development Officer (Panchyat) Kotwali (in short 'ADO') along with the notice dated 8.9.2017 on Prapatra-1, proposed motion of no confidence and list of members of Kshettra Panchayat, Kotwali. 14. In paragraph 12, it has been further stated that ADO after receipt of documents on 11.9.2017 received the notice of Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bijnor dated 11.9.2017 for convening the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali on 28.9.2017 along with notice dated 8.9.2017 on Prapatra-1 along with proposed "No Confidence Motion", pasted on the notice board of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor on 11.9.2017 itself through his office staff. Further vide letter No. 51 dated 12.9.2017 sent the photographs of the notice board displaying the notice etc. to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor has received the said letter No. 51 on 12.9.2017, itself and the said letter was endorsed by him to the concerned clerk of his office for necessary action. He placed the said letter on record after making necessary entry of receipts on receipt register of the office. 15. In paragraph 15 it has been further submitted that apart from the publication of notice on Prapatra-1 and proposal of no confidence pasted on notice board of office of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor on 11.9.2017, the notice was duly sent to all the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor by a registered post on 13.9.2017. 16. It has been, inter alia, pleaded in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit, that all the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor had the knowledge of the meeting of no confidence to be held on 28.9.2017. 16. It has been, inter alia, pleaded in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit, that all the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor had the knowledge of the meeting of no confidence to be held on 28.9.2017. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, in an effort to abort the said meeting procured alleged misconceived objections, along with affidavits of 40 members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor, after the District Magistrate, Respondent No. 2 had convened the meeting of No Confidence on 28.9.2017, followed by, pasting of the impugned notice on the notice board of Kshetra Panchayat on 11.9.2017. However, no cognizance could be taken thereon by the District Magistrate with regard to the complaint since conducting a detailed evidentiary enquiry was outside the purview of Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. 17. It has been stated next that the notice dated 11.9.2017 having been pasted on the notice board of Kshettra Panchayat, was also sent to the individual members by registered post making it apparent that substantial compliance of service of notice was made, thus, the petitioner cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the said notice. 18. With regard to subscribing to oath by the members of Kshettra Panchayat, in paragraph 25 it has been stated mat out of 187, 185 members had taken oath as members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor on 26.5.2016 and duly put their signatures/thumb impression in the attendance register. However, the petitioner, Smt. Poonam Devi W/o. Narendra at serial No. 128 and Smt. Vimlo Devi W/o. Ratan Singh at serial No. 144 respectively in the Register were absent on 26.5.2016. Thus, the very basis of the writ petition is misconceived. 19. In reply to the counter-affidavit filed by me Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bijnor, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit, inter aha, denying the contents of me counter-affidavit and reiterating me contents of me writ petition. The petitioner further made allegations of tampering and manipulation in the record. 20. In paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4 it has been stated that all me members of the Kshettra Panchayat had taken oaths of membership of the Kshettra Panchayat after their election. The petitioner further made allegations of tampering and manipulation in the record. 20. In paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4 it has been stated that all me members of the Kshettra Panchayat had taken oaths of membership of the Kshettra Panchayat after their election. In paragraph 17, it has been stated that the District Magistrate had initiated the process of 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner in accordance with law after following the proper procedure provided under Section 15(2) of the Act. 21. Further in paragraph 17, it has been stated by the Respondent No. 4 that 106 members of Kshettra Panchyat had signed the 'No Confidence Motion' and thereafter presented it before the District Magistrate, Bijnor, Respondent No. 2 for initiating the 'No Confidence Motion' under Section 15(2) of U.P. Keshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act. 22. The District Magistrate filed his personal affidavit of compliance. In paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 it has been stated as follows; "3. That out of 185 members of Kshetta Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor a notice dated 8.9.2017 on Prapatra-1 duly signed by 104 members was submitted before the then District Magistrate on 8.9.2017 in person by some of the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali. The aforesaid notice was supported by affidavits of 104 members of Kshettra Panchayat, who were signatory to the notice dated 8.9.2017. After receipt of the notice and the enclosed documents on 8.9.2017, the then District Magistrate, Bijnor on the same day marked the same to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor. The District Panchayat Raj Officer after necessary formalities put up the file before the then District Magistrate on 11.9.2017. As the notice was signed by more than half members of Kshettra Panchayat, the respondent No. 2 issued impugned notice No. 2529 dated 11.9.2017 convening the meeting for consideration of "No Confidence Motion" on 28.9.2017 at 11.00 a.m. The then District Magistrate, Bijnor vide letter No. 2530 dated 11.9.2017 informed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagina to preside the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat convened on 28.9.2017 at 11.00 a.m. Copy of the said letter was also endorsed to Block Development Officer, Kotwali to make necessary arrangement of the meeting. A true copy of the letter No. 2530 dated 11.09.2017 addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to this supplementary counter-affidavit. 4. A true copy of the letter No. 2530 dated 11.09.2017 addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to this supplementary counter-affidavit. 4. That the notice No. 2529 dated 11.9.2017 along with the file were marked to the District Panchayat Raj Officer for necessary action of sending the notices to the individual members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali by the modes contemplated under law. 5. That as one of the mode of service of notice of "No Confidence Motion" of Kshetra Panchayat is by pasting the notice on the notice board as required under the Rules framed under Section 237 of the Act, accordingly the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer forwarded the notice No. 2529 dated 11.09.2017 issued by the then Collector, Bijnor to Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Kotwali, hereinafter referred to as 'ADO (P), Kotwali, along with notice dated 08.09.2017 on Prapatra-1 proposed motion of no confidence and list of members of the Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali to be pasted on Notice Board of Kshetra panchayat Kotwali on 11.09.2017. A relevant extract of the Dak Bahi Register, 2017 bearing the endorsement of receipt of the documents by ADO (P), Kotwali on 11.09.2017 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary counter-affidavit. The original Dak Bahi Register shall be placed before this Hon'ble Court if so required. 6. That ADO (P), Kotwali after receipt of the documents on 11.09.2017 got the notice of respondent No. 2 dated 11.09.2017, convening the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali on 28.9.2017 along with notice dated 08.09.2017 on Prapatra-1 along with proposed "No Confidence Motion" pasted on the notice board of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor on 11.09.2017 itself through his office staff and vide letter No. 51 dated 12.09.2017 communicated the photographs of the notice board pasting the notices etc. to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor has received the said letter No. 51 on 12.09.2017 itself and the said letter was endorsed by him to the complaint clerk of his office and it was registered on dispatch register and thereafter it was received by the said officer. to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor has received the said letter No. 51 on 12.09.2017 itself and the said letter was endorsed by him to the complaint clerk of his office and it was registered on dispatch register and thereafter it was received by the said officer. For convenient perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of the letter of ADO (P), Kotwali dated 12.09.2017 addressed to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor along with photographs of the notice board pasting the notices on the notice board of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali as well as the endorsement of District Panchayat Raj Officer and the relevant extract of the dispatch register are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-3 to this supplementary counter-affidavit. 7. That as letter No. 2530 dated 11.09.2017 sent by the then Collector, Bijnor to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagina was also endorsed to Block Development Officer, Kotwali for appropriate action, the Block Development Officer, Kotwali, District Bijnor too vide letter No. 1344 dated 12.09.2017 communicated that notices have been pasted on the notice board of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali for making arrangement of the meeting of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali. A true copy of the letter dated 12.09.2017 of Block Development Officer, Kotwali, District Bijnor is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this supplementary counter-affidavit. 8. That the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor sent notice No. 2529 dated 11.09.2017 issued by the then Collector, Bijnor to all the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali vide registered post on 13.09.2017 informing the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali to be held on 28.09.2017. Thus, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of law in giving notice to the members of Kshettra Panchayat, Kotwali, District Bijnor by publication of impugned notice on the notice-board of office of Kshettra Panchayat on 11.09.2017 itself, besides service of notice by registered post. Thus, the assertions made in the writ petition that 15 days clear notice was not given to the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor are apparently incorrect and against the record. 9. Thus, the assertions made in the writ petition that 15 days clear notice was not given to the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor are apparently incorrect and against the record. 9. That all the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali had full knowledge of the meeting of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali to be held 28.09.2017 for consideration of proposal of "No Confidence Motion" against the Block Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, inasmuch as 123 members attended the meeting on 28.09.2017 at 11.00 a.m. Out of the aforesaid members, 114 members participated in the voting also. In compliance of the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court on 21.09.2017, the outcome of the meeting has not been given effect to, however, the Ballot Box, list of members who attended the meeting on 28.09.2017 and unused ballot papers have been kept in safe custody in the treasury under double lock." 23. In the said affidavit, a true copy of the letter dated letter No. 2530 dated 11.9.2017 addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor, the extract of the Dak Bahi Register, 2017 bearing the endorsement of receipt of the documents by ADO (P), Kotwali on 11.09.2017, true copy of the letter of ADO (P), Kotwali dated 12.09.2017 addressed to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bijnor along with photographs of the notice board of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali displaying the notice etc. have been annexed indicating that necessary directions had been issued to ADO (P), Kotwali for making arrangement of the meeting of Kshetra Panchayat, Kotwali, which is extracted hereinbelow; **Ikzs"kd] [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh] dksrokyh&fctukSjA lsok esa] ftykf/kdkjh] fctukSjA i=kd 1344@lkr&ia0@v0fo0iz0& cSBd@2017&18 fnukad 12-9-2017 egksn;] d`i;k vius dk;kZy; ds i=kad 2580@lkr&ia0@v0fo0iz0&cSBd@2017&18@fnukad 11 flrEcj 2017 tks fd {ks= iapk;r] dksrokyh dh izeq[k Jhefr iwue nsoh ds fo:) vfo'okl ds fopkj foe'kZ gsrq {ks= iapk;r dh cSBd fnukad 28-09-2017 dks le; 11 cts iwokZUg {ks= iapk;r] dksrokyh dk;kZy; ij vk;ksftr djus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s gS] dk voyksdu djus dh d`ik djsA mDr ds fo"k; esa fuosnu djuk gS ¼11½ fd {ks= iapk;r] dksrokyh ds {ks= iapk;r lnL;ksa dh lwph dks fnukad 11-09-2017 dks uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk mDr cSBd vk;kstu dh rS;kjh gsrq lgk0 fo0 v0 ¼iapk;r½ dks vko';d funsZ'k ns fn;s x;s gSA Hkonh; [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh] dksrokyh&fctukSjA i=kad fnukad mDrA izfrfyfi& ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] fctukSj dks lwpukFkZA [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh dksrokyh&fctukSjA ** 24. Apart from the aforesaid affidavit several other affidavits have also been exchanged between the parties. 25. In pursuance of the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by this Court, Sri A.K. Goel, Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the original record for perusal of this Court. 26. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Sri A.K. Goel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We have also perused the original record which has been produced before this Court by the State. 27. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. 28. From a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition it transpires that the present petition has been filed mainly on the following grounds; (A) that compliance of Section 15 of the Act has not been made as the notice was not given in accordance with Section 15 of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. It was incumbent upon the collector under Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act to give notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed to the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. (B) A written notice was not validly signed by at least half of the total members of Kshettra Panchayat as required under Section 15(2) of the Act. (C) 26 members out of the 106 members of Kshetra Panchayat who had allegedly signed the written notice of "Motion of No Confidence" had not subscribed to oath, as such, they are neither entitled to sign the written notice of intention to make the 'No Confidence Motion' nor they are entitled to participate in the voting for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion'. 29. Written notice of intention dated 8.9.2017 for 'No Confidence Motion' was allegedly having signatures of 106 members of Kshettra Panchayat and out of those, 40 members had allegedly given their affidavits dated 12.9.2017 to the District Magistrate, Bijnor, Respondent No. 2 stating that they had neither signed any notice of no-confidence motion nor given any affidavits against the petitioner and reposed full confidence in the petitioner. According to them, their signatures/thumb impressions have been forged for the purpose of moving the impugned 'No Confidence Motion'. 30. According to them, their signatures/thumb impressions have been forged for the purpose of moving the impugned 'No Confidence Motion'. 30. Admittedly, written notice of intention dated 8.9.2017 for 'No Confidence Motion' was having signatures of 106 members of Kshettra Panchayat. The petitioner has however disputed the signatures of about 40 members who had filed their affidavits before the concerned District Magistrate denying their signatures/thumb impression on the written notice dated 8.9.2017. 31. A similar question which fell for consideration was dealt with in detail by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 325 (FB) : ( AIR 2015 All 65 ) wherein in paragraph 15 of the judgment has held as follows:-- "In our view, both the decisions of the majority as well as the minority essentially follow the same line and the area of dissent is rather narrow. Both the judgments of the majority as well as the minority postulate that the Collector ought not to make a detailed enquiry where serious allegations of fraud, coercion and duress are required to be resolved particularly having regard to the fact that a meeting had to be convened as soon as possible. The area of divergence is only this that whereas the majority left it open to the Collector to determine whether and if so what enquiry should be held, the view of the dissenting Judge was that the Collector should hold an enquiry so long as a detailed enquiry into serious questions of coercion or fraud was not involved. In either view of the matter and since we are bound by the judgment of the Full Bench, the law on the subject is thus clear. The Collector, in the course of exercising the power which is conferred upon him, ought not to enquire into seriously disputed questions of fact involving issues of fraud, coercion and duress. Moreover, the Collector must have the discretion in each case of determining on the basis of a summary proceeding whether the essential requirements of a valid notice of an intention to move a motion of no confidence have been fulfilled. Moreover, the Collector must have the discretion in each case of determining on the basis of a summary proceeding whether the essential requirements of a valid notice of an intention to move a motion of no confidence have been fulfilled. Where in the course of the summary enquiry, it appears to the Collector that the written notice does not comply with the requirements of law, the Collector would be within his power in determining as to whether all the required conditions have been fulfilled, as enunciated in sub-section (2) of Section 15. Whether the Collector in a given case has transgressed his power is separate issue on which judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available. However, we expressly clarify that we are not laying down a detailed and exhaustive enumeration of the circumstances in which the Collector can determine the validity of a notice furnished under Section (2) or those in which he can make a limited enquiry which, as we have held, he is entitled and competent to make. Ultimately, each case depends upon its own facts and it for the Collector to determine as to whether the objections raised before him are outside the scope of the limited inquiry which he can make upon notice of an intent to move a motion of no confidence if it is submitted to him together with a notice of no confidence." 32. The perusal of the aforesaid judgments goes to show that it is not open to the Collector to hold a detailed fact finding enquiry into the validity of the signatures which are appended to the notice. The collector, in the course of exercising the power which is conferred upon him, ought not to enquire into such seriously disputed questions of fact involving issues of fraud, forgery, coercion and duress. 33. Thus, in view of the above, the Collector was fully justified in not making enquiry into seriously disputed questions of fact alleged by the petitioner. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, 40 members whose name and details have been given in paragraph 13 of the writ petition do not stand excluded from the list of the members who had signed on the written notice of intention for moving 'No Confidence Motion'. 34. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, 40 members whose name and details have been given in paragraph 13 of the writ petition do not stand excluded from the list of the members who had signed on the written notice of intention for moving 'No Confidence Motion'. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that 26 members who (details of the members have been given in para 19 of the Writ Petition) have not subscribed to oath as members of Kshettra Panchayat, were not entitled and eligible to put their signatures on the notice of 'No Confidence Motion' dated 8.9.2017. It was further submitted that if a member of any elected body does not subscribe to oath, he would not be treated as a member. 35. With regard to the above contention, we have carefully perused the original record produced by Mr. A.K. Goel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel before us. A bare perusal of the record shows that out of 187 members, 185 members have taken oath as members of Kshettra Panchayat on 26.5.2016 and they have also duly put their signatures/thumb impression in the concerned attendance register. Thus from above, we don't find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard and is liable to be rejected. 36. It is also noticeable that the petitioner has stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that election of the Kshettra Panchayat was held on 29.10.2015 and the members were declared elected on 1.11.2015 after which the petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat on 7.2.2016. Further out of 187 total members, after the death of 2 members of Kshettra Panchayat, their strength was reduced to 185. The written notice/'No Confidence Motion' was submitted before the District Magistrate on 8.9.2017 i.e. after a lapse of nearly two years of the election of Kshettra Panchayat. Meaning thereby that for nearly two years, the aforesaid members must have been participating in the meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat but still no objections whatsoever were ever raised earlier by the petitioner who himself was the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat. Now, for the first time, when the motion of No Confidence was moved, the objection in this regard is being raised which further creates serious dent in the case or the petitioner. 37. Now, for the first time, when the motion of No Confidence was moved, the objection in this regard is being raised which further creates serious dent in the case or the petitioner. 37. Perusal of the original record clearly supports the averments made in paragraph 25 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, stating that the members took oath on 26.5.2016 and put their signatures/thumb impression in the attendance register and notice dated 8.9.2017 was signed, by more than half of the members of the Kshettra Panchayat. The notice, therefore, validly represented more than half of the members of the Kshettra Panchayat, as such, the Collector was fully justified to convene a meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. 38. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice was not given to the petitioner and the members of Kshettra Panchayat by the District Magistrate within the prescribed period. According to sub-section (15)(3)(ii) of the Act it was incumbent upon the collector to have given the notice of not less than 15 days of such meeting to the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 11.9.2017 was dispatched to all the members on 13.9.2017 fixing date 28.9.2017 for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion'. As per Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act, there must be 15 days clear notice of the meeting, however, in the present case there were only 14 days after excluding the date of dispatch and date of meeting therefore the impugned notice was illegal and in contravention of Section 15 of the Act. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was not pasted on the notice board. 39. We have considered the matter carefully and examined the original record, we are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner. The perusal of the original record as placed before us clearly shows mat notice was pasted on the notice board. 40. 39. We have considered the matter carefully and examined the original record, we are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner. The perusal of the original record as placed before us clearly shows mat notice was pasted on the notice board. 40. It may be relevant to mention here that the petitioner in the writ petition has neither mentioned that the notice was not pasted on the notice board of Kshettra Panchayat on 11.9.2017 as provided under the relevant rules nor any amendment application to this effect for the incorporation of such plea was filed by the petitioner, but still we have considered the submission of the petitioner carefully. A perusal of the original record clearly indicates that ADO after receipt of documents on 11.9.2017 got the notice (sent by the Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bijnor dated 11.9.2017 convening the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali on 28.9.2017 along with notice dated 8.9.2017 on Prapatra-1 expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh) pasted on the notice board of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor on 11.9.2017 itself. The details of the same have been given in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit of compliance dated 25.7.2018 filed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor in his personal capacity. Thus the requirement of pasting of notice on the Notice Board as prescribed under the relevant rules has been adhered to by the authorities. 41. Now we would deal with the contention of the petitioner with regard to the noncompliance with the provisions of giving at least 15 days notice for convening meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. Admittedly, according to the petitioner, orders for convening the meeting was passed by the District Magistrate on 11.9.2017 but the registered notice were dispatched on 13.9.2017 which were admittedly received by the members, but after excluding the date of dispatch and date of meeting, there were only 14 days between the date of dispatch and date of meeting i.e. 28.9.2017, as such, it was a notice of less than 15 days. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is a violation of the provision of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act and no meeting can be convened in pursuance of the said notice. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is a violation of the provision of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act and no meeting can be convened in pursuance of the said notice. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon the decision of Praveen Siddqui v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 [(Suppl.) ADJ 642 (DB)] wherein it has been held that requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act in the prescribed proforma is not mandatory and proceedings will not be vitiated if there has been substantial compliance of provisions. 42. Sri A.K. Goel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while relying upon the two decisions of this Court in the case of Sardar Gyan Singh v. District Magistrate, Bijnor & Ors., 1975 AWC 321 and Vikas Trivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2013 (8) ADJ 523 (FB): ( AIR 2014 All 166 ) has referred to paragraph Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the aforesaid decision of this Court in Praveen Siddqui (supra), which read as under; 24. The second submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the time period contemplated under Section 15(3)(ii) has to be counted from 31 August, 2017 when the notice was sent by registered post to all the members of the Kshettra Panchayat. 25. To examine this issue, it would be appropriate for the Court to refer to the two Full Bench decisions of this Court in Sardar Gyan Singh v. District Magistrate, Bijnor & Ors., 1975 AWC 321 and Vikas Trivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2013 (8) ADJ 523 (FB) : AIR 2014 All 166 ). 26. Sardar Gyan Singh is a Full Bench decision of five Hon'ble Judges and Section 87-A(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 relating to motion of no-confidence against the President came up for interpretation. The Full Bench noticed that though Section 87-A contains 15 sub-sections, only the first three sub-sections were material. They are as follows:- "87-A: (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing no-confidence in the President shall be made only in accordance with the procedure laid down below. The Full Bench noticed that though Section 87-A contains 15 sub-sections, only the first three sub-sections were material. They are as follows:- "87-A: (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing no-confidence in the President shall be made only in accordance with the procedure laid down below. (2) Written notice of intention to make a motion of no-confidence on its president signed by such number of members of the board as constituted not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Board, together with a copy of the motion which it is proposed to make, shall be delivered in person together by any two of the members signing the notice to the District Magistrate. (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-section (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 his 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." 27. The issue that arose before the Full Bench was as to whether the provisions of Section 83-A(3) are mandatory or directory. The Full Bench held that the first part of the section requiring the District Magistrate to convene a meeting and to send notices to the members is mandatory but the manner of service of notice and publication of the same is directory in nature and substantial compliance of the same would meet the requirement of law. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:-- "8. A careful analysis of sub-section (3) would make it clear that the first part which requires the District Magistrate to convene meeting of the Board for considering the motion of no-confidence against the President is mandatory. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:-- "8. A careful analysis of sub-section (3) would make it clear that the first part which requires the District Magistrate to convene meeting of the Board for considering the motion of no-confidence against the President is mandatory. The District Magistrate is required to perform a public duty in convening a meeting of the Board for consideration of the motion at the office of the Board on the date and time as fixed by him, he has no choice in the matter. He has to convene a meeting on a date within 30 and 35 days from the date of presentation of the motion to him. The District Magistrate is further enjoined to perform a public duty of sending notice of the meeting to the members, this again is a mandatory requirement of law which must be strictly complied with. The second part of the sub-section lays down the manner required to be followed in sending notices to the members. It lays down that notice of the meeting shall be sent by registered post to every member of the Board at his place of residence. The essence of this provision is to give information to the members to enable them to avail opportunity of participating in the meeting convened for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion. The first part of the section requiring the District Magistrate to convene meeting and to send notices to the members is mandatory, any disregard of that provision would defeat the very purpose of the meeting, but the manner of service of notice and publication of the same is directory in nature, therefore a substantial compliance of the same would meet the requirement of law. 9. The purpose of service of notice by registered post and publication of the notice otherwise is to ensure that members should get adequate notice, of the meeting to enable them to participate in the debate over the no-confidence motion at the meeting. That purpose is not defeated if the notice is sent to the members not by registered post but by other methods and seven clear days are given to the members. The legislature never intended that unless notice is sent by registered post to the members the proceedings of the meeting would be vitiated. That purpose is not defeated if the notice is sent to the members not by registered post but by other methods and seven clear days are given to the members. The legislature never intended that unless notice is sent by registered post to the members the proceedings of the meeting would be vitiated. The legislature, no doubt, stressed that if the two steps as laid down in the sub-section are taken by the District Magistrate, i.e., notice of the meeting is sent to members by registered post at their place of residence and further if it is published in the manner directed by the District Magistrate, a presumption would arise and every member shall be deemed to have received the notice of the meeting. In that case it will not be open to any member to contend that he did not receive notice of the meeting or that the meeting was illegally constituted for want of notice. The purpose of sending notice can be achieved even without sending the same by registered post. There may be a case where the postal system may be disorganised and it may not be possible to send notice by registered post. In that situation the District Magistrate may send notice to members of the Board by special messenger giving them seven clear days before the date of the meeting. In that event the legislative intent and purpose requiring sending of notice would be fully achieved, although in that event the rule of presumption as laid down in the sub-section would not be available and if a challenge was made by a member that no notice was received by him, the deeming provision will not be applicable and it would require proof that the notice even though sent by ordinary post or by special messenger was actually served on the member. The emphasis on sending notice to members by registered post and for publication of the same in the manner directed by the District Magistrate, is directed to invoke the presumption as contemplated in the last sentence of the sub-section. In the absence of presumption, it is always open to a party to prove that notice though sent in a different manner was served on the members. In view of the above discussion. In the absence of presumption, it is always open to a party to prove that notice though sent in a different manner was served on the members. In view of the above discussion. I am of the opinion that even if the notice is not sent to the members by registered post the meeting cannot be held to have been illegally convened provided it is proved that the notice was received by the members and they had knowledge of the meeting. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19. The above discussion shows that the preponderance of the Judicial opinion is mat the second part of sub-section (3) of Section 87-A is directory, its literal compliance is not necessary. A substantial compliance in regard to service of notice of the meeting for consideration of the motion of no-confidence on the members will be sufficient and any literal noncompliance of the said provision will not invalidate the meeting or the motion of no-confidence which may be adopted at the said meeting. In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the second part of sub-section (3), of Section 87-A of the Act laying down manner for sending the notice to the members of the Board is directory, while the first part of the said sub-section requiring the District Magistrate to convene a meeting and to send notices to the members is mandatory. It would be sufficient compliance of the directory provision of this sub-section if notice is served on the members not by registered post but by any other mode and in that situation the motion of no-confidence which may be carried at the said meeting cannot be nullified on the ground of any literal non-compliance of service of notice by registered post." (Emphasis supplied) 28. Vikas Trivedi is a Full Bench decision of three Hon'ble Judges. The issue that arose before the Full Bench was with regard to the motion of no-confidence contemplated under Section 15(2)(3) as also Section 28(2)(3) of the Act. The Full Bench held that the requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) in the prescribed pro forma as required by Rule 2 and Form F-2 was not mandatory and the proceedings would not be vitiated if there was substantial compliance of the provisions. The Full Bench held that the requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) in the prescribed pro forma as required by Rule 2 and Form F-2 was not mandatory and the proceedings would not be vitiated if there was substantial compliance of the provisions. However, whether there was substantial compliance of the provisions would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The observations are as follows:-- "63. Now after having noticed the relevant statutory provisions, the principles of statutory interpretation and the various judgments of this Court interpreting Section 15 and Section 28 of the 1961 Act, which are up for consideration in this writ petitions, we have to look into the statutory provisions under consideration and find out as to whether the requirement of sending the notice in accordance with the prescribed proforma with annexures is mandatory and non compliance of the same shall vitiate entire proceeding. 64. A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 15 indicates that it is specifically provided that written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as maybe prescribed together with a copy of proposed motion shall be delivered in person to the Collector. After receiving the written notice of intention to make the motion along with proposed motion, it is enjoined on the Collector to convene a meeting of the Kshetra Samiti for consideration of the motion on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him. Sub-section (3)(ii) of Section 15 requires the Collector to give notice to the members of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. The manner in which the notice is to be given has been prescribed in the rules. As noted above, the manner of sending notice is prescribed in Rule 2. Rule 2 contains three requirements i.e. (a) shall be in Form-2 of the schedule given below, (b) shall be sent by registered post to the Kshetra Samiti at its ordinary place and (c) shall also be published by affixation of copy thereto on the Notice Board of the office of the Kshetra Samiti. Form-2 of the Schedule is the format of the notice. Form-2 of the Schedule is the format of the notice. The notice is required to contain information regarding following:-- (a) Name of Kshettra Samiti whose meeting is to be held; (b) Date of meeting; (c) Time of meeting; and (d) The name of Pramukh/Up-Pramukh against whom motion of no confidence has been brought. .. 72. Whether there has been substantial compliance of the second part of Clause (ii) of Section 15(3) read with Rule 2 of the Rules and Form II contained in the Schedule to the Rules, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. .. .. .. 74. The judgment of 5-Judge Full Bench in Gyan Singh's case (supra) had considered Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, which is also similar provision for bringing no confidence motion against the President of the Municipal Board. As noted above, Section 87-Asub-clause (3) of the Municipalities Act, 1916 requires the District Magistrate to send the notice by registered post not less than seven clear days before the date of meeting.........at his place of residence. The words used in Section 87(3) were "he shall send registered post". Sending of the notice by registered post was thus preceded by word "shall". The Full Bench held that second part of Section 87(3) which requires sending of the notice by registered post is not mandatory and substantial compliance of the said provision was sufficient and shall not invalidate the proceeding. Sending the notice in prescribed pro forma as required by Rule 2 read with Form-2 is also procedural requirement substantial compliance of which shall serve the purpose. Insisting on compliance of each and every part of formate of the notice shall be giving undue weight to the procedure and formate ignoring the purpose and object of whole statutory provision and scheme. The ratio of Full Bench judgment in Gyan Singh's case (supra), as noted above, are fully applicable while interpreting the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) read with Rule 2 and Form-2. The Full Bench in Gyan Singh's case held that second part of sub-section (3) of Section 87 requiring sending of notice by registered post lays down the manner required to be followed in sending me notice to the members which is directory. The same has been specifically laid down by the Full Bench in paragraphs 8 and 18 which have already been quoted above. The same has been specifically laid down by the Full Bench in paragraphs 8 and 18 which have already been quoted above. We are of the view that ratio of the Full Bench in Gyan Singh's case (supra) is fully applicable for interpreting the provisions of Section 15(3) read with Rule 2 and Form-2. .. .. 77. The provisions of Rule 2 read with Form-2 are also statutory provisions which are required to be complied with and there is no discretion in the authorities or they are not free to disregard the same at their whims. If the notice, which is sent by the Collector does not substantially comply with the requirements, the proceeding may be vitiated, similarly when the notice substantially comply with the provisions, the action may survive. This can be explained by giving illustration. Take an example where Collector after receiving notice for no confidence motion along with proposal convenes a meeting and issue a notice to the members which does not indicate that meeting is fixed for consideration of no confidence motion against which office bearers, obviously the said notice cannot be said to be substantial compliance. Another example of non compliance shall be when notice does not mention even the date of meeting. The Court has to look into as to whether there is substantial compliance, and the proceeding will be allowed not to be vitiated only when the Court is satisfied that there is sufficient compliance of the manner in which notice has been sent............." (Emphasis supplied) It is clear from the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the notice contemplated under Section 15(3)(ii) requires information regarding the following:-- "(a) Name of Kshetra Samiti whose meeting is to be held; (b) Date of meeting; (c) Time of meeting; and 30. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the two Full Benches that the requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) in the prescribed proforma as required by Rule-2 and Form-II is not mandatory and the proceedings will not be vitiated if there has been substantial compliance of the provisions. 43. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the two Full Benches that the requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) in the prescribed proforma as required by Rule-2 and Form-II is not mandatory and the proceedings will not be vitiated if there has been substantial compliance of the provisions. 43. Thus this Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that the requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act in the prescribed proforma as required by Rule 2 and Form II is not mandatory and the proceedings will not be vitiated if there has been substantial compliance of the provision. 44. In the present case, admittedly, notices were issued to the members of the Kshettra Panchayat, Kotwali, Bijnor and it is not denied that any of the members have received the notice nor has any member come forward to say that they have no information of the meeting which took place on 28.9.2018 to express want of confidence in Block Pramukh. It has also come on record that the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion took place on 28.9.2017 which was attended by 123 members out of 140 members who have participated in the voting. However, the outcome of the meeting has not been given effect to in compliance of the ad interim direction issued by this Court on 21.9.2017. The notice of Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bijnor dated 11.9.2017 convening the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali on 28.9.2017 along with notice dated 8.9.2017 on Prapatra-1 expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh was pasted on the notice board of Kshetra Panchayat Kotwali, District Bijnor on 11.9.2017. The aforesaid facts clearly show that substantial compliance of the relevant provision was made in the matter. 45. In the result, we don't see any merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the interim order dated 21.9.2017 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. The Collector, Bijnor is directed to declare forthwith the result of the voting which took place on 28.9.2017 in the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat Kotwali Bijnor for consideration of motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner.