- (1.) HEARD Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel or respondents.
(2.) BY means of this petition, petitioner has claimed the relief of convening of a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat on the basis of a requisition, which according to the petitioner, has been given to the District Magistrate concerned and thereupon as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the UP. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, the District Magistrate has convened a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat fixing 5th November, 2007 as the date of meeting. It is further asserted by the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid notice, in fact, no meeting of Kshettra Panchayat has taken place. Therefore, a prayer is made that the District Magistrate may be directed to convene a meeting afresh on the basis of requisition already made. We are of the opinion that the requisition exhausted once the Collector convenes a meeting as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the U. P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam. The inaction or griev ance of the petitioner, if any, cannot be adjudicated upon on the touchstone of the notice given pursuant whereto the District Magistrate concerned has already con vened a meeting. In this view of the matter, this petition is misconceived. However, if the petitioner still enjoys majority of the members of the Kshettra Panchayat, who are against the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat, he can give a fresh notice for convening a meeting for consideration of the No Confidence Motion.
(3.) WRIT petition is dismissed. .;