JUDGMENT : Arindam Sinha, J. 1. Mr. Ashok Lal, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioner and reiterates his submission earlier made on moving the petition. Paragraph 1 from our order dated 3rd December, 2025 is reproduced below. "1. Mr. Ashok Lal, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is Chairman of the cooperative society. Impugned is order/notice dated 13th November, 2025, issued by respondent no.2 (the District Magistrate) reviving the motion of no confidence against his client. He submits, the order is illegal." Today Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State, of whom respondent no. 2 (the District Magistrate) was to answer our query on said order dated 3rd December, 2025, made to Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, appearing for State that day. Paragraph 3 from the order is reproduced below. "3. We do not think it necessary to direct issuance of notice on other private respondents at this stage. Mr. Tiwari has adjournment to obtain written instruction on a provision or rule allowing for revival of a no confidence motion." 2. Dr. Tiwari relies on rules 458, 459 and 464 in Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968. The rules are reproduced below. " 458. (1) On receipt of the notice of no confidence as provided 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 motion: Provided that such meeting shall be held within thirty-five days of the receipt of the notice of no confidence: Provided further that at least twenty-one day's notice shall be given for holding 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 Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall also be held in the same meeting. 459. (1) The specified authority shall also nominate any Gazetted Government servant (other than an Officer of Department which is concerned with the supervision and administration of the Society concerned) to act as a Presiding Officer of the meeting in which the resolution for no confidence shall be considered. 459. (1) The specified authority shall also nominate any Gazetted Government servant (other than an Officer of Department which is concerned with the supervision and administration of the Society concerned) to act as a Presiding Officer of the meeting in which the resolution for no confidence shall be considered. (2) The quorum for such a meeting of the Committee of Management shall be [more than] half of the total number of members of the Committee.] xxx xxx xxx xxx 464 . If the motion for no confidence fails for want of quorum or lack of requisite majority at the meeting, no subsequent meeting for considering the motion of no confidence shall be held within six months of the date of the previous meeting." (emphasis supplied) First proviso under rule 458 says, meeting pursuant to the notice of no confidence shall be held within 35 days of receipt of the notice of no confidence. There is no dispute that the meeting was not held. Rule 464 is not attracted because no meeting was held. Dr. Tiwari submits, the authority was not available and therefore, could not convene the meeting. Hence, subsequent date for convening the meeting was given on impugned order dated 13th November, 2025. 3. Convening the meeting beyond 35 days of receipt of the notice of no confidence is not permissible by the Rules. Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondent no. 4. He files counter affidavit and draws attention to view taken by a Division Bench of this Court, disclosed in it. The view was taken on judgment dated 3rd August, 2022 in Writ-C no. 20356 of 2022 (Hariraj Singh Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. and others). Mr. Mishra relies on paragraph 13 (Lawsuit print). The paragraph is reproduced below. "13. The first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 458 provides that meeting shall be held within 35 days from the receipt of the notice of no confidence motion and there must at least 21 days notice. The first proviso providing the meeting to be held within 35 days, in our considered view, was enacted with the object of holding the meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed no confidence motion expeditiously. The first proviso providing the meeting to be held within 35 days, in our considered view, was enacted with the object of holding the meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed no confidence motion expeditiously. However, where the notice for no confidence motion as moved by the members for convening the meeting does not suffer from any infirmity then any lapse on the part of the authority in convening the meeting to consider no confidence motion, cannot render the notice for no confidence infructuous. If the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 458 is interpreted strictly, in the manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the result would be that notice of no confidence motion moved by the members, without being tested at the floor of the house, can be easily defeated by collusion, negligence/lapses. Thus, such strict interpretation would be against the basic principles of democracy and would affect the survival of democratic institutions. Therefore, the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 458, in our considered view, is directory, and it means that normally the meeting shall be held within 35 days of the receipt of notice of no confidence. But in extenuating circumstances, this limitation of 35 days would be viewed as directory. In the present set of facts, as already noticed above, the meeting has been adjourned, not because of any circumstances created or because of any fault on the part of the members who moved the notice for no confidence motion, instead the meeting was adjourned by the Presiding Officer on the first occasion for administrative reasons and on the second event, i.e. today, on account of his being tested Corona positive and therefore, it is not possible for the Presiding Officer to hold the meeting. However, considering the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 458 that provides for at least 21 days notice to be given for holding a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed no confidence motion, it stands to reason that adequate time ought to be afforded to the members of Cooperative Bank to attend that meeting. Giving of adequate time as provided in the second proviso aforesaid is necessary because the members of the Cooperative Society/Bank can make due arrangements for attending the meeting. Therefore, the second proviso aforesaid is required to be compulsorily followed." (emphasis supplied) 4. Giving of adequate time as provided in the second proviso aforesaid is necessary because the members of the Cooperative Society/Bank can make due arrangements for attending the meeting. Therefore, the second proviso aforesaid is required to be compulsorily followed." (emphasis supplied) 4. State has not been able to demonstrate that there is a provision enabling the administration to fix a date of the meeting beyond 35 days from receipt of the notice of no confidence. The procedure is clear as per first proviso to rule 458. We lay emphasis that rules can only be provisions of procedure, the law provided for in Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. 5. View was taken in Hariraj Singh Choudhary (supra) that when a notice has been duly served, then any lapse on part of the authority in convening the meeting to consider the no confidence motion cannot render the notice of no confidence infructuous. The Bench said the notice, without being tested on the floor of the house, can be easily defeated by collusion, negligence/lapses. The Bench went on to take cognizance that the person in the administrative office had subsequently been tested Corona positive leading to omission to hold the adjourned meeting. In such extenuating circumstances, limitation of 35 days, the Bench said, would be viewed as directory. The case is clearly distinguishable on facts. The law enjoins upon the administration to facilitate the process of the particular tier of democracy that has been put in place. There cannot be any other important administrative function, which can lead to extenuating circumstances of omission, for us to dilute the mandate. We respectfully agree that a notice of no confidence moved by the members, without being tested at the floor of the house, can be easily defeated by collusion, negligence/lapses. Inevitably suspicion arises leading to such presumption, when there is negligence/lapse on part of the administrative authority. When timelines have been provided without provision for relaxation, the intent and object becomes clearly manifest. In the pandemic period, the Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional power extended the prescribed periods of time (see orders dated 23rd March, 2020, 8th March and 23rd September, 2021 of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no. 3/2020). There can be no otherwise justification for administrative negligence/lapse. It will lead to procedural collapse, consequently burdening the Court to adjudicate on justification of administrative negligence/lapses. 6. 3/2020). There can be no otherwise justification for administrative negligence/lapse. It will lead to procedural collapse, consequently burdening the Court to adjudicate on justification of administrative negligence/lapses. 6. Impugned order dated 13th November, 2025 is set aside and quashed. We make it clear that our intervention will not invite application of rule 468. Fresh motion of no confidence can immediately be brought. 7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.