R. K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was holding an office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Nagala Aliya, Post Office Gangchauli, Tahsil Hathras, District Aligarh. A notice of an intention to move a motion of non-confidence against the petitioner was delivered to District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, the respondent No. 1. This notice was given by the respondents nos. 5 to 9 by their application dated 9-3-1984. On receipt of the said notice the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari fixed 6-4-1984 as the date for the meeting of the Gaon Sabha at 10 A. M. at Basic Primary Pathshala Nagala Aliya. He directed the Vikas Khand Adhikari, the respondent No. 2 to enquire into the matter and further that due information be given about the meeting, its place and date by affixing notices at conspicuous places in the area of Gaon Sabha and publicity should also be made by beat of drums. THE respondent No. 2 was required to report compliance by 23-3-1984. Ultimately the motion was carried out by the requisite majority. Consequently the respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 7-4-1984 by which he removed the petitioner from the office of Pradhan and directed that charge be handed over to the respondent no. 4 the Up-Pradhan. THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari against the order dated 7-4-1984 and a further relief, by making an amendment application praying that resolution dated 6-4-1984 by which the motion was carried out be also quashed.
(2.) THIS writ petition is opposed by the respondents. Once counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, by Sri Sugriv Singh who was the Presiding Officer in the meeting held on 6-4-1984. Another counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 4. A number of grounds have been raised in this writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Provisions relating to the removal of Pradhan are contained in section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). Sub-section (4) of section 14 says that subject to the provisions of this section, the procedure for the removal of a Pradhan, including that to be followed at such meeting, shall be such as may be prescribed. The term " Prescribed " has been defined in clause (p) of section 2. According to the definition contained in that clause, it means prescribed by the Act or rules made thereunder. Rules 33-B and 37 of the Rules are relevant for the purposes of this case. Sub- rule (2) of Rule 33-B, so far as relevant for our purposes, reads as under :- " The Prescribed Authority shall convene a meeting of the Gaon Sabha, under section 14 of the Act, on a date to be fixed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the motion. "
(3.) RELYING upon the aforesaid rule and the expression " which shall not be later than thirty days " contained therein the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the motion of non-confidence could not have been carried out unless a period of thirty days had expired from the date when the notice was given, namely, on 9-3-1984. The meetting which was held on 6-4-1984 was illegal and invalid. We are unable to accept this contention. In our opinion the expression " not later than thirty days " suggests an outer terminus, meaning thereby that it should be before thirty days. In " Words and Phrases " Permanent Edition, it is stated Phrase " not later than " is synonymous with phrase " at any time prior to." Hastings v. Nash, 219 SW 2d 225, 226, 215 Ark. 38. At another place, it has been defined as " By " as indicating a terminal point of time, means " not later than ; as early as. " Goldman v. Broyles, Tax., 141 SW 283, 285. Since the meeting was held within the period of thirty days from the date of notice there is nothing wrong with it.;