S.K Dhaon, J.:— The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of a particular Gaon Sabha. A notice of intention of moving a motion of no-confidence was presented by seven Members of the Gaon Sabha to the Sub-Divisional Officer on June 5, 1984. That officer on June 18, 1984 passed an order fixing July 4, 1984 as the date of the meeting of the Gaon Sabha for consideration of the motion of no-confidence. However, this order was given effect to on June 19, 1984 in so far as on that date the Block Development Officer issued an order for convening the meeting on July 4, 1984. A meeting was to be held and the motion was to be put to vote. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by the instant writ petition. This Court passed an ad-interim order to the effect that the voting shall take place but the result shall not be announced.
2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent.
3. It is now admitted that in view of the fact that the notice for holding the meeting on July 4, 1984 was issued on June 19, 1984, the provisions of Section 14 of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred, to as the Act) were breached. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act provides for “atleast. 15 days previous notice”. It is, thus, clear, that the requisite notice fell short of one day.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has very fairly conceded that in view of the position, which has emerged after the change of affidavits, the meeting of the Gaon Sabha had been illegally convened on July 4, 1984. The natural corollary of this is that the proceedings held on July 4, 1984 must fall automatically. The result is that the voting which took place on July 4, 1984, has no standing in the eye of law and the same should be ignored. We have, therefore, to proceed on the assumption that on July 4, 1984 no meeting of the Gaon Sabha took place. The result is that the motion of no-confidence presented to the Sub-Divisional Officer has not yet been put to vote.
5. Some debate has taken place at tha bar as to what order should be passed now. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no further action can be taken on the notice of the intention to move a motion of no-confidence given on June 5, 1984 and a fresh notice has to be given. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has stated that this is not the correct legal position, the notice of the intention to move the motion of no-confidence stands in fact and a fresh date has to be fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer for considering the motion of no-confidence. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the matter and we are satisfied that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent is correct.
6. We, therefore, direct the Sub-Divisional Officer to consider the notice received by him on June 5, 1984 as a subsisting one We also direct him to convene a fresh meeting of the Gaon Sabha keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. He shall now see that 15 days clear notice is given for holding such a meeting and he shall act in accordance with law.
7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Under the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.