No-confidence notice procedure under local panchayat law is directory on personal delivery and does not require signature verification.

Section 15 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 requires that notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion substantially reach the Collector, but the insistence on personal delivery only to the Collector was treated as directory where no prejudice was shown. The Collector's role is summary and limited to checking statutory compliance; it does not extend to a trial-like inquiry into forgery, fraud, coercion, or signature genuineness before convening the meeting. Procedural irregularities that do not affect the substance of the notice do not invalidate the no-confidence process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement in Section 15(2) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 that the written notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion be delivered in person to the Collector is mandatory or directory; (ii) whether the Collector was required to verify the signatures on the notice before convening the meeting.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement in Section 15(2) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 that the written notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion be delivered in person to the Collector is mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 15 shows that the purpose of the notice is to ensure that the motion reaches the Collector and that the Collector then convenes the meeting within the prescribed time. The governing principle is that the use of the word "shall" is not conclusive; the true character of the provision depends on the object of the enactment, the nature of the duty, and the consequences of non-compliance. Applying that test, the requirement of delivering the notice to the Collector was treated as mandatory to the extent that the notice must reach the Collector, but the insistence that it must be personally handed only to the Collector was held to be procedural and directory. No prejudice to the Pramukh was shown from receipt by the officiating Collector.

Conclusion: The requirement that the notice be personally delivered only to the Collector is directory, and the notice was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector was required to verify the signatures on the notice before convening the meeting.

Analysis: The Collector's function under Section 15 is summary in nature and is confined to determining whether the notice satisfies the essential requirements of the statute. A detailed evidentiary enquiry into disputed questions such as forgery, fraud, coercion, or the genuineness of signatures lies outside the scope of that power. The Collector is not expected to conduct a trial-like inquiry before convening the meeting, and the validity of the notice is not to be tested by such an exercise at that stage.

Conclusion: The Collector was not bound to undertake a detailed verification of signatures before convening the meeting.

Final Conclusion: The no-confidence proceedings were not vitiated by the mode of delivery of the notice or by the absence of prior signature verification, and the challenge to the proposed meeting failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 15 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, the notice of intention must substantially reach the Collector, but the provision does not require a trial-like verification of signatures, and procedural irregularities that cause no prejudice do not invalidate the no-confidence process.

---