K.C Agrawal, J.:— This writ petition has been filed by Yadunath Pandey who was the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Bandhu Chak, Block Dubhar, District Ballia, challenging the validity of motion of no-confidence carried against him on June 18, 1986. A notice for moving the motion was given by 174 persons. 18th June, 1986 had been fixed by the Prescribed Authority by an order passed on 3rd June, 1986 for its consideration. The motion was carried and the petitioner was removed by virtue of the resolution passed under S. 14 read with Rule 33-B of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules, framed thereunder.
2. The writ petition was filed along with the application for stay on 18th June, 1986. The petitioner continued as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha under the orders passed by this Court. The question raised by the petitioner's counsel was that as the meeting dated 18-6-1986 had not been convened in accordance with sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 by giving 15 days' previous notice, the meeting was invalid and on that account the resolution passed on that date was void and ineffective. It was contended that the petitioner could not be removed from the office of Pradhan by the resolution passed on the aforesaid date. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 runs as follows:—
“(1) The Goan Sabha may, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days' previous notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting.”
3. Rule 33-B deals with the procedure for removal of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. The relevant sub-rules are sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2). Sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 requires “at least 15 days' notice” to be given to the members of the Gaon Sabha. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice was giving on June 3, 1986 for considering the motion on the 18th June, 1986. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the words “at least” mean that 15, days' clear notice would have to be given to the members before a motion of no-confidence is considered. For calculating 15 days, both the terminal days have to be excluded from computation. Controverting the argument Sri R.K Pandey and the Standing Counsel urged that a day is a day whether “at least” was added in sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Act or left out. The statute did not require that the interval which is to elapse between the date of meeting and the giving of the notice should be 14 days. The object of the enactment was to limit the extent and the latest day at which the meeting for consideration of the motion of no-confidence was to be convened. It was considered proper that at least 15 days was required. The requirement of 15 days is intended to exclude the two terminals.
4. In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, page 340, the significance of the words “at least” was considered and it was said:—
“Again, when so many “clear days”, or so many days “at least”, are given to do an act, or “not less than” so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation.”
5. This statement is based on many cases cited by Maxwell.
6. The most significant words in sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 are “at least”. Explaining the meaning of these words, ‘Strouds’, in Judicial Dictionary, Vol. I, Third Edition, has said, where time is to be computed as so many days “at least” that means clear days (R. v. Salop, (1838) 7 LJ MC 56; Mitchell v. Forster, (1840) 9 LJ MC 95; Young v. Higgon, (1840) 9 LJ MC 29; Norton v. Salisbury, (1846) 16 LJ CP 9; Freeman v. Read, (1863) 32 LJ MC 226 cited Calendar Monto; Robinson v. Robinson, (1861) 30 LJ PM & A 189; Howes v. Turner, (1876) 1 CPD 670; Mercantile Trust v. International Co., (1893) 1 Ch 484, No. 489: C.P.R v. St. Mary, Warwick, (1853) 21 LT OS 74, cited year).
7. The intention of the Legislature by using the words “at least” in sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 was that 15 days' clear notice should be given. The phrase ‘clear days’ means that the time to be reckoned exclusive of both the first and the last days.
8. In Rambharose Lal Gohoi v. State of M.P, AIR 1955 Nag 35, a Division Bench was required to consider about similar controversy. It said:
“The Rule of law is that some words such as so many “clear days” or so many days “at least” are used, the two terminal days must be excluded. The pertinent rule framed under the Act says that notice of such a motion shall be given to the President “at least” ten days before moving it and hence under the rule ten clear days should elapse between the notice of a resolution of no-confidence and the motion of no-confidence.”
9. In our opinion, where an act is required by the Statute to be done so many days “at least” before a given event, the time must be reckoned excluding both the day of the act and that of the event. If 15 days' notice has not been given, the resolution passed before the expiry of the period of 15 days' notice would be void. We have already held above that in computing 15 days both the first and the last days have to be excluded. In the instant case, notice was given on 3rd June, 1986 for holding the no-confidence meeting on the 18th June, 1986. If both the days — the initial and the last are excluded, that would not give 15 clear days. That would mean that only 14 days' time was given to the members of the Gaon Sabha. Giving of 14 days, when the law requires 15 days, would be in contravention of sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 and the business transacted would be null and void. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent is restrained from taking over the charge from the petitioner of Pradhan, Gaon Sabha in pursuance of the resolution removing him passed on 18-6-1986.
10. Writ petition allowed.