R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) -Petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Kshetra Samiti Nidhauli Kala disirict Etah in 1988. A notice of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner, was moved under section 15 of the U. P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 28-6-1990. Collector Etah issued a notice dated 7-7-1990 fixing 23-7-90 as the date of meeting in which aforesaid motion was to be considered by the Kshetra Samiti. It is against this order of Collector, fixing date of meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence, that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) AT the time this writ petition was filed this court granted stay order, whereby meeting was allowed to take place on 23-7-1990, but it was directed that the result shall not be given effect to. Meeting was accordingly held on 23-7-1990 in which out of total 95 members of Gaon Sabha 65 attended the meeting and out of 65, 62 voted against the petitioner while 3 were in his favour. In this manner the motion of no-confidence has been passed against the petitioner by vast majority. Sri Abhai Singh Yadav has moved an application in this writ petition for impleadment on the ground that, he was one of the persons who signed the notice of motion of no-confidence and had presented it before the Collector and he being necessary party is liable to be impleaded. We have allowed this application on 27-11-1990 and impleaded Sri Abhai Singh Yadav as one of the respondents in this writ petition. We have also accepted the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Abhai Singh Yadav. The petititioner has also filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Sri Abhai Singh Yadav and learned standing counsel and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the holding of the meeting in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Collector on the ground that under section 15 (3) (ii) of the Act a notice of not less than 15 days of such a meeting is required to be given by Collector which has not been done In as much as the notices were despatched on 9-7-1990 and from this date meeting of 23-7-1990 is in a period which is less than 15 days. Learned counsel for Sri Abhai Singh Yadav has, on the other hand, apart from disputing the claim of the petitioner about despatch of notices on 9-7-1990, argued that meeting was held on 23-7-1990 and the result was declared, from which it is clear that motion of no-confidence has been passed, against the petitioner, by thumping majority, and further that the writ is not maintainable in as much as the petitioner has not impleaded the persons who have signed the notice of motion of no-confidence and the persons who had presented the said motion to the Collector.
(3.) IN support of his argument the learned counsel for petitioner has placed, before us, three postal receipts, which have been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition in order to demonstrate that the notices were despatched on 9-7-1990. Learned counsel for Sri Abhai Singh Yadav has, on the other hand, contested the claim of the petitioner that the notices were despatched on 9-7-1990 and in this connection the learned counsel has invited our attention to the same annexure-2 to the writ petition in order to show that the notice of meeting was in fact despatched on 7-7-1990, but another seal of 9-7-1990 has been affixed on the old seal of 7-7-1990. Learned counsel for respondent has also placed before us, postal receipts of 7-7-1990 in order to show that notices were despatched on 7-7-1990. Learned counsel for petitioner, while disputing the claim of the respondent, has relied upon two affidavits of Branch Post Master Bhagipur district Etah, and one of the affidavits is addressed to the District Magistrate Etah, which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. IN this affidavit it has been mentioned that notices were despatched on 9-7-1990. By another affidavit, which has been addressed to this court and filed alongwith supplementary affidavit by petitioner, the Branch Post Master has repeated the same averments about despatch of notices on 9-7-1990 and not on 7-7-1990. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has produced a photo stat copy of the letter which contains an endorsement by postal authorities to the effect that notices were despatched on 7-7-1990. From the bare perusal of one of the three postal receipts, filed by the petitioner as annexure-2 to the writ petition, it appears that a seal of 9-7-1990 has been affixed on the old seal of 7- 7-1990 ; whereas respondents have filed all the receipts as annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit, which are very clear and there does not appear to be any manipulation in those receipts. Branch Post Master of the post office concerned has shown extra ordinary interest in this dispute in as much as he has filed affidavit before Collector without there being any request or order from him and has also handed over another affidavit to the petitioner addressed to this court, although there is no order from this court to the said official to file an affidavit. Normally government servants do not, at the instance of any private party, give the affidavit unless required by the court. Respondent, Sri Abhai Singh, in his counter-affidavit has filed, as annexure-1, his letter alongwith an endorsement, made by postal authority, in which it has been mentioned that all these notices (95 in number) were despatched on 7-7-1990. Petitioner has not filed any order, certificate, letter of affidavit of postal authorities contradicting aforesaid endorsement of the postal authorities filed by the respondent. When the Branch Post Master can give an affidavit to the petitioner without asking by the court there should not have been any difficulty to the petitioner to obtain another affidavit and file it alongwith rejoinder-affidavit or he could have contradicted it in the same affidavit of Branch Post Master. Nothing of the kind was done which raises suspicion about bonafide and correctness of the contents of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. From perusal of the material on record we are not satisfied with the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner, that notices for meeting were despatched on 9-7-1990 and to us it appears that these notices were despatched on 7-7-1990.;