SALIK RAM Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is Pradhan, has, by means of this writ petition, challenged the resolution of the Gaon Sabha passed in meeting held on 26-1 l-i 990 the motion -of no confidence has been passed against him. Grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned resolution is illegal on the ground (i) that the metting fixed on 26-11-1990 was against R.ule 33-B (2) of U. P. Panchayat Raj rules in as much as it was fixed on a date which is later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and (ii) quorum of two third of the members prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act was not complete when the meeting commenced on 26-11-1990.

(2.) RULE 33-B (2) of U. P. Panchayat Raj RULEs requires that Prescribed Authority shall fix meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence on a date "which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice". According to the averments made in the writ petition the notice is said to have been received by Prescribed Authority on 27-10-1990 and the metting was fixed and held on 26-11-1990. "Not later than thirty days" means within thirty days. Supreme Court in the case of Harinder Singh v. Karnail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271 has construed words "not later than fourteen days" to mean "within a period of fourteen days". RULE 33-B (2) shall stand complied with if meeting of Goan Sabha was held within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice. As the period of thirty days is to be counted "from the date of the receipt of the notice" the day on which the notice was received by Prescribed Authority will be excluded when counting the period of thirty days, in as much as when something is required to be done within specified period, the date on which the cause of action arose has to be excluded, while computing the specified period. Supreme Court in the case of Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1293, has laid down that :- "The e is however a volume of authority in England Showing that where a certain thing has to be done within a specified period, the day on which the cause of action arose is to be excluded from computation and the day on which action is taken is to be included. X X X X The rule is well established that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act is to be done, the day on that date is to be excluded. X X X X a general rule the effect of defining a period from such a day until such a day within which an act is to be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last day". On the principle aforesaid the date on which the notice was received by the Prescribed Authority i.e. 27-10-1990 has to be excluded while counting period of thirty days and on this basis the meeting held on 26-11-1990 is within thirty days. The first contention of learned counsel for petitioner as such has got to be rejected.

(3.) THE writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.