- (1.) B. S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice convening the meeting on no confi dence motion against her issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer Nainital (for short D. P. R. O.) on 18-01-2006 on the ground that the notice was given in violation of the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which re quires 15 days previous notice to be given for a meeting to be convened for the purpose of removing the Gram Pradhan. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the provision of Rule 33-B (2) framed un der the aforesaid Act, which inter-alia provides that "the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, under Sec tion 14 of the Act, on a date to be fixed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. "
(2.) RELEVANT facts of the case, which are in dispute, are that Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition shows that the impugned notice to convene the meeting was issued on 20th January, 2006 and the date fixed for the meeting of no confi dence was 6th February, 2006. It has been contended that the notices have been served on 30th January, 2006. As such, the period between the date of meeting and when the notices were given is less than 15 days. Copy of the order dated 18-01-2006, which was issued by District Panchayat Raj Officer (copy enclosed at page 15 to the writ petition) reveals that the motion was made on 7-01-2006 and the meeting was being con vened on 6-2-2006, i. e. on 31st day. It is thus amply clear that provision of Rule 33-B (2) framed under the said Act was complied with. The second point under con troversy between the petitioner and the respondents is whether previous notice of clear 15 days was served upon the petitioner or not. Section 14 (1) of the Act reads as under: "removal of Pradhan- (1) The Gram Pradhan may at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which atleast 15 days pre vious notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Gram Sabha present and voting. " In this case, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition on 31-01-2006 prior to the scheduled date of meeting for no confidence motion. It is not disputed that the said meet ing was to be held on 6- 2-2006. This Court on 1-2-2006 passed an interim order to the effect that the operation of the impugned notice (Annexure No. 2) shall remain stayed observing that the respondents will be at liberty to convene the meeting on fresh mo tion as per Rules.
(3.) A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting re spondents as well as by the State on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 6. The fact regarding issuance of notice and the date, which was fixed for the meeting of no confidence are not disputed. The only grievance of the petitioner is that she had not been given 15 days clear previous notice before the meeting of no con fidence. According to the petitioner the notice was served upon her on 30-1-2006.;