Substantial compliance governs statutory notice for no-confidence proceedings; formal defects do not invalidate the meeting if core information is conveyed.

A statutory notice for a no-confidence motion is directory where its purpose is to inform members of the meeting particulars and secure participation. The prescribed form and mode under Section 15(3)(ii) read with Rule 2 and Form II are not mandatory in the sense that every deviation invalidates the proceedings; substantial compliance is sufficient. Omission to enclose the full signed motion or the names of signatories does not by itself vitiate the proceedings if the members receive the essential information and the object of the provision is achieved. The contrary view in Ram Nath Tripathi was disapproved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice to be given by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) in the prescribed form under Rule 2 and Form II is mandatory so as to invalidate the proceedings on non-compliance; (ii) Whether omission to send the copy of the notice containing the names of signatories or omission of some pages of the proposed motion containing signatures of members vitiates the no-confidence proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the notice to be given by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) in the prescribed form under Rule 2 and Form II is mandatory so as to invalidate the proceedings on non-compliance.

Analysis: Section 15(3)(ii) requires the Collector to give not less than fifteen days' notice in such manner as may be prescribed, and the Rules prescribe Form II and the method of service. The purpose of the notice is to convey the meeting particulars and enable members to participate in the consideration of the motion. Applying the settled distinction between mandatory and directory requirements, the judgment holds that the essential requirement is communication of the requisite information, and that the prescribed form and mode are procedural. The earlier view treating literal compliance with the form as indispensable was held not to state the correct law.

Conclusion: The prescribed form under Rule 2 and Form II is not mandatory in the sense of invalidating the proceedings for every defect; substantial compliance is sufficient.

Issue (ii): Whether omission to send the copy of the notice containing the names of signatories or omission of some pages of the proposed motion containing signatures of members vitiates the no-confidence proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between the notice of intention to move the motion and the proposed motion itself. The object of the Collector's notice is to inform the members of the meeting, its date, time, place, and purpose. Since the motion is to be read at the meeting under Section 15(6), non-supply of every page or of the signatures appended to the motion does not, by itself, defeat the object of the provision if the members otherwise receive the substance of the information. The defect is not fatal unless it results in lack of substantial compliance on the facts of a particular case.

Conclusion: The proceedings are not invalid merely because the copy of the signatories' notice was not enclosed or some pages of the signed motion were omitted; validity depends on substantial compliance.

Final Conclusion: The correct legal position is that the Collector's notice under Section 15(3)(ii) read with the Rules is procedural and not fatal for every deviation from the prescribed format, and the contrary view in Ram Nath Tripathi was disapproved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory notice is meant to inform members and secure participation in a no-confidence meeting, the prescribed form and mode are directory in nature; the proceedings survive if there is substantial compliance and the core information reaches the members.

---