Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1442 (ALL)

Nisha Yadav v. State Of U. P.

2019-05-27

PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWAL, RAJNISH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra and Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents. 1. The petitioner, who is an elected Block Pramukh of Block Sarojini Nagar in District Lucknow, has sought the quashing of the show cause notice dated 07.10.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2, Collector/District Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 15(3) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, here-in-after referred as 'the Adhiniyam, 1961' for calling a meeting of the Members of the Block Development Committee on 21.10.2017 for consideration of no confidence against the petitioner. 2. The total strength of members of the Block Development Committee, Block Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow is 123. The petitioner was elected as Block Pramukh in the year 2016. In July, 2017, a no confidence motion was agitated against the petitioner but petitioner submitted affidavit of 85 Block Pramukh Development members and thereafter proceedings of no confidence motion was dropped. 3. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 07.10.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2 fixing a date for meeting on 21.10.2017 on the ground that it was in violation of provisions contained in Section 15(3)(ii) of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, as it did not comply with the provisions requiring 15 days clear notice. The impugned notice has been issued in utter infringement of mandatory provision contained in Section 15(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 which states that no confidence motion can be contemplated in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 15 only. 4. According to the petitioner, the impugned notices dated 07.10.2017 were actually dispatched to the BDC Members through speed post. On 08.10.2017 was Sunday. The speed-post notice was received by the petitioner on 10.10.2017. The gap between the date of dispatch of the notice and the date of holding of meeting was less than fifteen days. The notice was, thus, illegal and consequently the business transacted in pursuance of the said notice was null and void and was liable to be declared as such. 5. As per counter affidavit of respondents no. The gap between the date of dispatch of the notice and the date of holding of meeting was less than fifteen days. The notice was, thus, illegal and consequently the business transacted in pursuance of the said notice was null and void and was liable to be declared as such. 5. As per counter affidavit of respondents no. 2 and 3, on 07.10.2017 notice for no confidence motion has been issued under Section 15(3)(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 for convening a meeting of Kshetra Panchayat, Sarojini Nagar in the office of the Kshetra Panchayat on 21.10.2017 and in this regard vide letter dated 07.10.2017 all Members of Kshetra Panchayat were informed by the District Magistrate. Shri Shailendra Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow has been appointed as Presiding Officer/President of the meeting vide order dated 07.10.2017, for presiding the aforesaid meeting scheduled to be held on 21.10.2017. The respondent no. 2 denied that any proposal for no-confidence motion was placed before the Collector, Lucknow in the month of July, 2017 whereas the letter of petitioner dated 24.07.2017 was received in the office of Collector, Lucknow. It is also stated that procedure as prescribed under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1961 has been duly followed by the respondent no. 2. 6. As per supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 6, a writ petition no. 25179 (M/B) of 2017 (Brijbhan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was also filed for same cause of action. In the said writ petition, the petitioner in the present writ petition was petitioner no. 7. In paragraph no. 3 of the said writ petition it is mentioned that the petitioners are the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and the petitioner no. 7 is the Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. The said writ petition was filed by 64 petitioners and the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated on 21.10.2017 but present writ petitioner deliberately did not disclose that a writ petition for the same cause of action was earlier filed and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In reply the petitioner has stated that the husband of the petitioner, after start of no-confidence motion, contacted a lawyer Mr. 7. In reply the petitioner has stated that the husband of the petitioner, after start of no-confidence motion, contacted a lawyer Mr. Dhruv Mathur and requested him to file the writ petition, however, all of sudden the father-in-law of the petitioner, who was suffering from severe lung problem, fell ill and due to grave medical emergency in the family, the entire family focused on ailment of her father-in-law but unfortunately he could not survive and succumbed to his medical emergency ailment on 12.01.2018. The petitioner apprised her husband to request Mr. Dhruv Mathur not to file writ petition but on account of medical emergency in the family, the movement of the husband of the petitioner was restricted from home to hospital, consequently he could not update the status immediately to him but he did inform Mr. Dhruv Mathur, Advocate after some delay. The petitioner's writ petition was filed by Mr. Anurag Shukla, Advocate for hearing first and on the next occasion Mr. Dhruv Mathur appeared before the Court and made a fair statement for not pressing the writ petition. With the aforesaid petitioner has submitted that no misuse or undue advantage was gained by her. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Kamal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 05.10.2013 in Writ-C No. 9763 of 2013, in which it has been held that 15 days clear notice to the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat of the meeting convened to consider a motion of non-confidence is mandatory necessitating strict adherence thereto and calls for no other interpretation. Same is the view taken in the case of Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 14.02.2014 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41077 of 2012. 9. Per contra, Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that on 07.10.2017 a notice was pasted on the notice board and thereafter same was dispatched on 08.10.2017. Out of 123 members, 53 members signed the no confidence and thereafter 66 members were in favour of no confidence and they participated in the meeting but due to interim order dated 12.10.2017 the meeting was held on 21.12.2017 but no result has been declared. He has drawn our attention to the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi Vs. He has drawn our attention to the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014 (6) ALJ 357 and a decision in the matter of Awadhesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2017 (5) ADJ 1 and has submitted that 21 days clear notice as prescribed in Section 15(3)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 was directory and not mandatory. The substantial compliance of provision has been made thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and same is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The main issue that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Adhiniyam were complied with by the Collector or not. 12. To examine this issue, the Court has to ascertain whether the notice dated 07.10.2017 issued by the Collector, Lucknow for convening a meeting of the members of the Kshetra Panchayat on 21.10.2017 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner was pasted on the Notice Board of the Kshetra Panchayat on 07.10.2017, thereafter, notice was dispatched to the members of Kshetra Panchayat on 08.10.2017 and whether the pasting of such notice can be said to be substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1961. 13. Section 15 of the Adhiniyam is reproduced below: "15 Motion of non-confidence in Pramukh - (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or any of a Kshettra Panchayat may be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat for the time being together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. (3) The Collector shall thereupon:- (i) convene a meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Kshettra Panchayat 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; and (ii) give to the elected member of the Kshettra Panchayat notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. -In computing the period of thirty days specified in this sub-section, the period during which a stay order, if any, issued by a Competent Court on a petition filed against the motion made under this section is in force plus such further time as may be required in the issue of fresh notices of the meeting to the members, shall be excluded. 14. Perusal of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, quoted above, shows that a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or any of a Kshettra Panchayat may be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the sub-section. 15. A plain and simple reading of clause (ii) of sub section (3) of section 15 of the Adhiniyam would show that the Collector after receiving a notice under section 15(2) of the Adhiniyam, is obliged to convene a meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat for consideration of the motion and is further obliged to give to the affected members of the Kshetra Panchayat notice of not less than 15 days of such meeting in the prescribed manner. 16. In exercise of powers under clause (ii) of sub section (3) of section 15 of the Adhiniyam, by a Notification dated 14.12.1962 rules have been framed relating to the Form in which the written notice of intention to make the motion of non-confidence of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh will be given by the members of a Kshettra Samiti and for prescribing the manner in which the Collector gives notice of the said motion to the members of the Kshetra Samiti after previous publication. The said Rules are being quoted below:- RULES 1. A written notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti shall be in Form I of the Schedule given below. 2. The said Rules are being quoted below:- RULES 1. A written notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti shall be in Form I of the Schedule given below. 2. The notice under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, shall be in Form II of the Schedule given below and shall be sent by registered post to every member of the Kshetra Samiti at his ordinary place of residence. It shall also be published by affixation of a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the Kshettra Samiti. SCHEDULE FORM I (Form of the written notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti) To The Collector, ................................. NOTICE Sir, We the undersigned members of the ................. Kshettra Samiti hereby give this notice to you of our intention to make the motion of non-confidence in Sri ............................... the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of our Kshettra Samiti and also annex hereto a copy of the proposed motion of non-confidence. 2. The total number of members, who for the time being constitute the Kshettra Samiti ........................... is............. Yours faithfully, 1. 2. 3. 4. Place ........................ Dated ...................196 FORM II (Form of the notice of a meeting of the Kshettra Samiti to be held for the consideration of the non-confidence motion against the Pramukh / Up-Pramukh) To, Sri Member of ................... Kshettra Samiti, district..................... Notice This notice is hereby given to you of the meeting of .............. Kshettra Samiti which shall be held at the office of the said Kshettra Samiti on ....................(date) at ...........(time) for consideration of the motion of non-confidence which has been made against Sri ........................... the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the said Kshettra Samiti. A copy of the motion is annexed hereto. Place ..................... Dated ................., 196 Collector .................." 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first part of clause (ii) of sub section (3) of section 15 of the Adhiniyam is mandatory. the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the said Kshettra Samiti. A copy of the motion is annexed hereto. Place ..................... Dated ................., 196 Collector .................." 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first part of clause (ii) of sub section (3) of section 15 of the Adhiniyam is mandatory. He has submitted that the words "not less than" used in the said clause means that 15 days clear notice has to be given to the elected members before a motion of non confidence is taken up for consideration and for calculating the 15 days period, both the first and the last days have to be excluded from consideration. It was submitted that the notice was dispatched on 08.10.2017 and the meeting was convened on 21.10.2017. The gap between the date of dispatch of the notice and the date of holding of meeting was less than 15 days. The notice was, thus, illegal and consequently the business transacted in pursuance of the said notice was null and void and liable to be declared as such. 18. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent has submitted that though the first part of clause (ii) sub section (3) of section 15 of the Adhiniyam regarding giving of notice was mandatory, the provision in regard to the time occurring therein was directory and not mandatory. 19. Pasting of the notice on the Notice Board of the Kshetra Panchayat is also a requirement contained in the Rules framed under Section 237 of the Adhiniyam. 20. In the case of Parveen Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2017 (Supp.) ADJ 642, which has been cited by the learned Standing Counsel, in which it has been held that the notice of no confidence motion dated 30th August, 2017 as also the copy of motion were pasted on the Notice Board of the Kshettra Panchayat on 30th August, 2017 itself. Such being the position, substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Adhiniyam and all the members of Kshettra Panchayat had the information that the meeting of the members of Kshettra Panchayat for motion expressing want of confidence in the Block Pramukh would be held on 15.09.2017. 21. In Sardar Gyan Singh Vs. Such being the position, substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Adhiniyam and all the members of Kshettra Panchayat had the information that the meeting of the members of Kshettra Panchayat for motion expressing want of confidence in the Block Pramukh would be held on 15.09.2017. 21. In Sardar Gyan Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Bijnor and others, reported in 1975 AWC 321 is a Full Bench decision of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in respect of corresponding part of Section 87-A(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 relating to motion of no-confidence against the President of the Municipality 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. (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 therefore, 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." 22. The issue before the Full Bench was as to whether the provisions of Section 83-A(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 are mandatory or directory. Thereupon every member shall be deemed to have received the notice." 22. The issue before the Full Bench was as to whether the provisions of Section 83-A(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 that 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 non-compliance 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 subsection 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." 23. The case of Vikas Trivedi (Supra) 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 Adhiniyam. The case of Vikas Trivedi (Supra) 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 Adhiniyam. The Full Bench held 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 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. 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 formate 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-A sub-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 proforma as required by Rule 2 read with Form-2 is also procedural requirement substantial compliance of which shall serve the purpose. Sending the notice in prescribed proforma 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 subsection (3) of Section 87 requiring sending of notice by registered post lays down the manner required to be followed in sending the 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. 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. ............ " 24. 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. ............ " 24. The Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in the matter of Awadhesh Singh (Supra) has observed as follows: "In our considered opinion, the said ratio was again appropriately reiterated while applying it to the office of Chairman of a Zila Panchayat under the 1961 Act as held in the case of Jivendra Nath Kaul (supra). The Division Bench in that case was directly considering the impact of non-fixation of notices by posting on the notice board which is evident from the recitals contained in paragraphs 2, 12, 18, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32 of the said decision. We are not reproducing the said paragraphs to unnecessarily burden this judgment, but the crux of the ratio is, that mere fact that the notice was not pasted on the notice board of the Zila Panchayat would not invalidate the convening of the meeting as the purpose of issuing notice is to intimate the members of the date, time and place of the meeting well in time so that they may come prepared to take part in the meeting. The judgment clearly states that a man can have knowledge of a meeting even if he reads a notice which was served upon one of his colleagues. In such circumstances, the person cannot even come and say that he was not served a notice individually, inasmuch the intention of giving notice is to inform the members of the Panchayat of the date, time and place in which a motion of no confidence is to be considered. The decision cited by Sri Prashant Chandra in the case of State Bank of India (supra) of the Bombay High Court would not be attracted as the said decision was not concerned with any such requirement as involved in the present case relating to the compliance of procedure under the 1961 Act. The direct decisions which are closer to the controversy have already been indicated above and hence no benefit can be availed of by the petitioner on the strength of the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The direct decisions which are closer to the controversy have already been indicated above and hence no benefit can be availed of by the petitioner on the strength of the judgment of the Bombay High Court. Apart from this, the distinction between form and content being mandatory or directory has again been explained in the Full Bench decision of Vikas Trivedi (supra) which also relies on the earlier Full Bench decision of Sardar Gyan Singh (supra)." 25. As per clause (ii) of sub section (3) of section 15 of the Adhiniyam, the Collector after convening the meeting to consider the motion of non confidence, is obliged to give to the elected members notice of the said meeting. Rule 2 of the Rules enjoins upon the Collector to send notices to the elected members by registered post. What then would be the date of giving notice to the elected members-the date on which the Collector signs the notice or the date on which the notice is actually dispatched to the member is the question to be answered. In the case of Kamal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that while computing 15 days period the two terminal dates, i.e., the date on which notice was dispatched to the elected members and date for convening the meeting, which was scheduled to he held, have to be excluded and held that 15 days clear notice to the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat of the meeting convened to consider a motion of non-confidence is mandatory necessitating strict adherence thereto and calls for no other interpretation. 26. In the case in hand, the dispute is not with regard to proforma of notice but the period of fifteen days clear notice. Admittedly notice dated 07.10.2017 was dispatched on 08.10.2017 by registered post. As per original record the respondents are able to establish the case that prior to 08.10.2017, the notice dated 07.10.2017 was also pasted on the notice board on 07.10.2017 at 04.00 PM. It has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel that if the Act provides two modes of service of notice, namely, by pasting the notice on notice board and by sending the same by registered post and in that event notice will be deemed to have been made sufficient, as such, this Court need not to interfere with the issue. 27. 27. There has been, in the facts and circumstances of the case, substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the Adhiniyam and all the members of Kshettra Panchayat had due information that the meeting of the members of the Kshettra Panchayat for motion expressing want of confidence in the Block Pramukh would be held on 21.10.2017 at 10.00 a.m in the office of the Kshettra Panchayat, Sarojini Nagar when the notice and the motion were pasted on the Notice Board of the Kshettra Panchayat on 07.10.2017. 28. As per the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter and rejoinder affidavits, it is also pertinent to note that except for the petitioner, who is the Block Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat, no other member has come forward to state that he had no information about the meeting that was to take place on 21.10.2017 to consider the motion expressing want of confidence in the Block Pramukh. After the meeting, the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat, including the petitioner, participated in the meeting that was held on 21.10.2017. 29. From the above-mentioned reasons, we are of the view that there is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 30. The respondents no. 2 and 3 are directed to declare the result of voting that took place in the meeting held on 21.10.2017 as expeditiously as possible. 31. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 12.10.2017 stands vacated. No order as to costs.