S.K.Phaujdar, J. - (1.) The matter was heard on 18-11-1999 in presence of the learned Counsels for both sides. The petitioner had been the Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat elected in the year 1994-95. The Penchayat consisted of 15 elected members. She challenges a notice/order dated 2-11-1999 recorded by District Panchayat Raj Officer of Ballia and prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the same. She also prays for a writ of mandamus for a fresh notice according to Section 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act.
(2.) In the impugned order, as were Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it is indicated that more than half of the members of the Gram Panchayat made a report to the District Panchayat Raj Officer craving that a no confidence motiton against the Pradhan be tabled and voted. The District Panchayat Raj Officer satisfied himself about the genuineness of the signatures of the members, and fixed 19-11-1999 for holding the meeting of the Panchayat for decision or no confidence motion.. The notice was sent to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat (i.e. the petitioner) for information. It is the case of the petitioner that this notice was served upon her only on 5th November, 1999 and there was no clear margin of 15 days from the date of service of notice and the date of voting on the no confidence motion and as such Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was no followed.
(3.) The members who had made the complaint to the District Panchayat Raj Officer were sought to be implead as respondent in the writ petition. The U.P. Pradhan had appeared through a Counsel and he raised an objection that the period of 14 days is to be counted from the date of issuance of the notice and not from the date of service and lie relied on a decision of the High Court as reported in (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1872, Ramashray Etc. v.. DPRO, Gorakhpur. This question had arisen before a Hon'ble Single Judge who had, after a detailed discussion of the decisions on allied laws, was of the view that Section 14 (1) contemplated that 15 days previous notice must be given to remove the Pradhan and according to Rule 33-B, a written notice of intention to move a motion of removal of Pradhan would be necessary, He referred to Rule 37 as a mode or manner here the notice is to be served and, according to his lordship, the actual period of 15 days occurring in Section 14 of the Act was meant to be counted from the issuance of the notice and it had no relevance with the service of the notice.;