- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS writ petition challenges the notice under Section 15 of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam calling for a meeting of no confidence against the petitioners who were elected as Pramukh and senior Up-Pramukh of the Kshetra Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the notice was delivered to the Collector on 3-10-1997 whereby the meeting has been called on 2- 11-1997. Hence he submitted that the meeting was being held beyond thirty days which is against Section 15 (3) (i) of the Act. We are not in agreement with this submission. In our opinion, the day on which the notice was given has to be ex cluded and hence the notice was not later than thirty days. Moreover, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Sairunisa v. Zila Panchayat Rajadhikari and another, being writ peti tion No. 1080 of 1997, decided on 21-1-1997. In that case the facts were that the notice was issued on 14-1-1997 and the date of meeting for no confidence was fixed on 23-1-1997 which was only nine days after the notice. Hence it was held that the notice was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and it was illegal. In our opinion that decision is distinguishable. If a lesser time than the minimum prescribed time is given, that will in our opinion be prejudicial because the members may not be able to have a proper discussion within a shorter time, However, we cannot understand as to how the petitioner is prejudiced even assuming the meeting was held on the 31st day. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discre tionary jurisdiction and we are not bound to interfere with the notice on the ground that there is some error of law unless the petitioner shows some prejudice to him. In this case even assuming that the meeting was held on the 31st day, no prejudice is caused to petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that some of the signatures on the notice was not of the members. This is a factual question and cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may approach the competent authority for this grievance who will consider and decide the same in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(3.) A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel on pay ment of usual charges within two days. Order accordingly. .;