K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) 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 Section 14 read with Rule 33B 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 -section (1) of Section 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 -section (1) of Section 14 runs as follows : The Gaon 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 -predawn. The relevant Sub -rules are Sub -rule (l) and Sub -rule (2). Sub -section (11) of Section 14 requires 'at least 15 days' notice 'to be given to the members of the Gaon fcabha. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice was given 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. Controveiting the argument Sri R.K. Pandey and the Standing Counsel urged that a day is a day whether " at least " was added in Sub -section (1) of Section 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.;