JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Amritlal challenging the validity of a no-confidence motion passed against him on 25-2-67.
(2.) THE motion of no-confidence was handed over to the Collector on 25-1-67 and he fixed 25-2-67 for its consideration under a mis-apprehension that 25th February was within 30 days of 25-1-67 as provided under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that as the meeting for discussing the motion of no-confidence was held later than 30 days from the date on which notice of it was delivered to the Collector the motion is invalid. The relevant portion of sec. 39 runs as follows: "39. Motion of no-confidence in Pradhan or Up-pradhan.- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pradhan, or the Up-pradhan of a Panchayat Samiti may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections: - (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti, together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Panchayat Samiti. (3) The Collector shall thereupon - (i) forward a copy of the notice, together with a copy of the proposed motion, to the Pramukh of the Zila Parishad having jurisdiction over the block, who shall place same before the Zila Parishad for its information at the next meeting thereof, (ii) convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Panchayat Samiti on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-sec. (2) was delivered to him; and (iii) give to the members notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation.- In computing the period of thirty days specified in this subsection, the period during which a stay order, if any, issued by a competent court on a petition filed against the motion made under the section is in force, shall be excluded. (4) The Collector shall preside at such meeting: Provided that if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, he is unable to do so, the Additional Collector shall so preside. (5) A meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not be adjourned. (14) The quorum to constitute a meeting for the consideration of a no-confidence motion against the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall be one third of the total number of persons entitled to vote thereat. " Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am unable to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner. The object of the Legislature in fixing the period of 30 days is that the motion may be considered expeditiously. If this period of 30 days is held to be mandatory the very object of the enactment will be defeated as in that case it will be open to the Collector to make the motion lapse by not calling a meeting for its consideration within 30 days. In Montreal State Railway vs. Normandin (1) their Lordships of the Privy Council held as follows: "when the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those who are entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only. " I accordingly hold that the period of 30 days provided under sec. 39 (3) (ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, is directory and not mandatory. My attention was drawn to my decision in Abdul Rahman vs. Municipal Board, Makrana (2 ). There the first meeting to discuss a motion of no-confidence in the Chairman of the Makrana Municipal Board was held within 30 days as provided under sec. 72 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, but the adjourned meeting was held beyond 30 days. The question as to whether if the first meeting had been held beyond 30 days it would be invalid did not arise for decision in that case. It was observed that the period of 30 days was not a period of limitation in the ordinary sense and that the power of the Collector to convene a meeting was not exhausted till the motion of no-confidence had been considered and voted upon. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Chandra vs. Tara Chand (3 ). The second part of the provisions of sec. 87-A came up for interpretation in that case and not the first part. The observation that the first part of the section was mandatory is therefore obiter. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition. The stay order passed in this case is discharged. The petitioner shall forthwith hand over charge of the Up-Pradhan. . ;