ORDER
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Heard The short submission made by the petitioner in this petition is that while holding election to the office of the President and Vice-President to Nagar Panchayats, Kailaras proper notice was not given, and that election was held in breach of the provisions dealing with the method and manner in which a meeting is to be convened.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner did take part in the proceedings and was ultimately unsuccessful in the battle of ballot.
3. In view of the provision contained in Article 243Z(g) of the Constitution, the matter can only be agitated in an election petition. In view of this constitutional bar, the present petition is not maintainable. See Khumano Bai v. State of M. P., 1995 MPLJ 67.
4. Apart from this, the Supreme Court in K. Narasibial v. H. C. Singri Gowda, AIR 1966 SC 330 : (1964) 7 SCR 618 has categorically held that merely because short notice is given, is no ground to interfere with the result of the election. It was observed at page 333, para 14:
“It is necessary also to remember that the main object of giving the notice is to make it possible for the Councillors to so arrange their other business as to be able to attend the meeting. For an ordinary general meeting the notice provided is of seven clear days. That is expected to give enough time for the purpose. But a lesser period of three clear days is considered sufficient for “special general meetings” generally. The obvious reason for providing a shorter period of such meetings is that these are considered more important meetings and Councillors are expected to make it convenient to attend these meetings
even at the cost of some inconvenience to themselves. Where the special general meeting is to dispose of some matter of great urgency it is considered that a period of even less than three clear days notice would be sufficient.”
*** **
“We are, therefore, of opinion that the fact that some of the Councillors received less than three clear days’ notice of the meeting did not by itself make the proceedings of the meeting or the resolution passed there invalid. These would be invalid only if the proceedings were prejudicially affected by such irregularity, As already stated, nineteen of the twenty Councillors attended the meeting. Of these 19, 15 voted in favour, of the resolution of non-confidence against the appellant. There is thus absolutely no reason for thinking that the proceedings of the meeting were prejudicially affected by the “irregularity in the service of notice.” ”
5. Besides, the petitioner took part in the proceedings. As such, this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs.250/-.