Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6958-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2975 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramu Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayat Raj Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak,Shubham Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amar Nath Dubey,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Hari Shanker Tewari,Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1 to 3 and Sri M.E. Khan, counsel appearing for opposite party no.4. 2. This petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 passed by opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to not to create any hindrance in smooth functioning of petitioner as Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Nindura, District Barabanki, notwithstanding impugned order dated 16.03.2024 passed by opposite party no.2" 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, what comes out is that requirement of 'not less than 15 days notice' by the Collector as envisaged in Section 15(3)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 is not satisfied and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has not been able to satisfy us on this and in view of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Smt. Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, (2014) SCC OnLine All 12236 (Paragraphs-5 and 8); Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2017) SCC OnLine All 3947 (Paragraph-13); Writ-C No.9763 fo 2013, Kamal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 05.10.2023 (Paragraphs-7, 26 and 36) the date of notice and the date on which the meeting is proposed, have to be excluded while calculating 15 days time and, in this case, the date of notice was 18.03.2024 and the date of proposed meeting was 02.04.2024. Excluding the aforesaid two days, the period comes to less than 15 days. 4. On being confronted, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party could not refute the aforesaid fact nor the legal position elucidated in the judgements referred herein above. Therefore, we need not consider the other pleas raised by the petitioner as on this plea itself the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned notice dated 16.03.2024 issued by the Collector under Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 is liable to be quashed. The same is accordingly quashed. 5. Writ petition is allowed. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Rao/- Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench