JUDGMENT 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.
4. A reference to Rule 37 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules indicate that it gives a mode of service of notice upon members of a Gram Sabha and the Act creates two different concepts for Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat. The mode of service of notice spoken of in Rule 37 relates to meetings of the Gram Sabha and not of the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, that mode speaks of a notice when a meeting is convened under Rule 47 of the Rules and this cannot have any bearing on a notice required to be given not under the Rules but under the provisions of Section 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act and the power to issue this notice as per Rule 33-B lies not on the Pradhan or any officer of the Panchayat but on the District Panchayat Raj Officer. A question, therefore, arises if the power under Rule 33-B would be deemed to be subject to the provisions of Rule 37. A bare reading of Section 14 indicates that a no confidence motion may not be tabled unless 15 days notice has been given for tabling it. The word 'given' has got special significance. The purpose of a notice is to inform the person noticed about some falt or eventuality that contemplated and the very purpose of notice would be frustrated, if it is deemed to have been "given" by the fact of mere "issuance" without reference to its service.
5. Chapter III of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 deals with rules regarding the sitting of and quorum of Gram Sabha and Gam Panchayat and conduct of proceeding therein. Rule 31 speaks that meetings of the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat shall ordinarilly be held in the village where Gram Sabha is located and except as otherwise provided in the Act or these Rules, the Pradhan and in his absence the Up Pradhan shall convent a meeting of Gram Sabha or a Gram Panchayat and shall fix the time, date and exact place of the meeting. Rule 32 says that a notice of a meeting of a Gram Sabha shall be given at least 15 days before the date of the meeting and if it was a meeting of Gram Panchayat, a written notice of at lease five days shall be given. Rule 33-B speaks of the procedure for removal of Pradhan or Up Pradhan and initially a written notice of the intention to move a no confidence motion was to be given by not less than half of the total number of the members of the Gram Panchayat stating the reasons for such removal and the District Panchayat Raj Officer is to verity the genuineness of the signatures on such requisition and only thereafter as per Rule 33-B (2), the District Panchayat Raj Officer is obliged to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat under Section 14 of the Act on a date to be fixed by him. These provisions clearly suggest that when it is a meeting of the Gram Panchayat nothing less then a written notice is contemplated and the Pradhan has no say in the matter it was on the question of removal of Pradhan or the Up Pradhan. The notice is to be given in writing in terms of Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Rule 37 speaks of notice of meetings of Gram Sabha and specifies the mode of notice by affixing a copy of the notices at conspicuous places within the Gram Sabha and also by beat of drums. This mode of notice cannot be made applicable for meetings of the Gram Panchayat and in no case the mode of notice could be anything less than a written notice as required under Rule 31 and must held the District Panchayat Raj Officer as required in Section 33-B (2).
6. The definition clauses in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act defines a Gram Sabha if Section 2 (9) meaning a body established under Section 3 consisting of persons registered in the electoral roll relating to a village comprised within the area of a Gram Panchayat. Section makes obligatory for the State Government in establish a Gram Sabha for a village or group of villages by a notification in the official gazette and the name of the Gram Sabha is also to be specified in the notification.
7. The term Gram Panchayat has been defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act meaning a Gram Panchayat constituted under Section 12 of the Act. A reference to Section 12 indicates that there shall be constituted for every Panchayat area, a Gram Panchayat bearing the name of the Panchayat area and every such Gram Panchayat shall be a body corporate. Panchayat area again means as per Section 2(11), the territorial area of a Gram Panchayat declared as such under Sub-section (1) of Section 11-F, it also requires a declaration by notification.
8. Chapter III of the Act speaks of Gram Sabha, its meetings and functions and Chapter III-A speaks of Gram Panchayats. Thus it is clear that the concept of Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha are having two different legal connotations and the rules meant for the Gram Sabha could not be taken to be the rules for the Gram Panchayat. On the question of notice of meeting for a Gram Panchayat, the mode of notice as per Rule 37 are not at all applicable as modes are by affixation and beat of drums for a Gram Sabha, for a period of 15 days whereas for a Gram Panchayat it must be in writting for a period of at least 5 days. These 5 days ought to be replaced by 15 days when a question of notice under Section 14 is concerned and the law is clear that this notice is to be given by District Panchayat Raj Officer and not by the Panchayat.
9. Looking from this angle, it must be concluded that the Act or the rules have not indicated what would be the mode of service of notice under Section 14 and in the absence thereof, it must be presumed that the normal mode of notice i.e. a notice in writting and personal service or even substituted service under obtain circumstances must be demanded. In the case at our hand, the notice though signed on 2-11-99 was served on 5-11-1999 and as such, according to the established by this Court, the first and last date, the date of service and the last in the notice, ought to be excluded from computing the period of 15. days. Thus, there was clearly no notice as required under Section 14 for the proposed no-confidence motion dated 19-11-1999 as such the notice and all steps taken subsequent to it cannot be sustained in law. The notice dated 2-11-1999 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer as per Annexure-3 to this writ petition stands quashed. If at all any action has been taken upon that notice, such actions, proceedings and resolutions also stands quashed. This order, however, will not stand in the way of issuance of a fresh notice according to law and to proceed thereon.