K.P.Singh J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been dismissed by us in limine on 8-11-1989. We directed the case to be listed on 13-11-1989 for delivery of reasons. Now we proceed to record our reasons for the dismissal of the writ petition in limine.
(2.) THE petitioner is the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Bhatwar, block Ram Nagar, district Jaunpur. An effort for motion of no confidence in the petitioner was made and in that connection the opposite party no. 1 after exercising powers under Section 14 read with Rule 33-B of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act fixed 24-9-1989 for the meeting as is evident from Annexure I attached with the writ petition. It appears that the aforesaid date 24-9-1989 was cancelled due to the circumstance that on enquiry it was revealed that 71 persons had not signed the notice of the intention to make the motion for removal of the petitioner as was required under Rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (see Annexure 2). On 20-10-1989 the opposite party no. 1 again exercising powers under Section 14 read with Rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, fixed 9-11-1989 for the meeting regarding vote of no confidence in the petitioner moved by requisite number of members of the Gaon Sabha as is evident from Annexure III. Now the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Annexure III dated 20-10-1989. The second prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the notice dated 20-10-1989. General relief and costs of the petition have alse been prayed for. Three contentions have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, it has been contended that motion for no confidence in the petitioner failed on 24-9-1989, therefore in view of the provisions of Section 14 (3) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act no subsequent meeting for the removal of the Pradhan can take place on 9-11-1989. Therefore, the notice contained in Annexure III dated 20-10-1989 should be quashed.
(3.) SECONDLY, it has been contended that the opposite parties are proceeding arbitrarily and illegally in the matter of second motion for no confidence in the petitioner therefore, the proceedings should be quashed. Thirdly, it has been contended that the notice dated 20-10-1989 was served upon the petitioner on 1-11-1989 therefore, 15 days' notice as contemplated by Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act has not been given to the petitioner because the meeting is to be held on 9-11-1989, therefore, the notice contained in Annexure III should be quashed and its operation should be stayed.;