JUDGMENT M. C. Desai, C.J. - This petition which came up for hearing before two of us has been referred by them to a large Bench because of the importance of the question raised in it. 2. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha in January, 1961. Under Sec. 11-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 there must be a Pradhan in a Gaon Sabha; he is to be elected by members of the Gaon Sabha from among themselves in the prescribed manner, vide Sec. 11-B. He holds office during the term of the Gram Panchayat, which is five years under Sec. 12(2). Under Sec. 14 "the Gaon Sabha may at a meeting specially convened for the purpose .... remove the Pradhan .... by a majority of two-thirds of members present and voting" and the procedure at the meeting must be such as may be prescribed. The procedure is prescribed in Rule 33-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. The Rule reads as follows: - "33-B (1) A written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan . . . under Sec. 14 .... shall be necessary. It shall be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha and shall state the reasons for moving the motion and .... shall be delivered in person by at least five members signing the notice to the prescribed authority. (2) The prescribed authority shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the notice convene a meeting of the Gaon Sabha .... The meeting so convened shall be presided over by the prescribed authority or the person authorised by him in writing in this behalf. (3) The Presiding Officer shall read to Gaon Sabha the notice received by him. He shall then allow the motion to be moved and discussed. Such discussion shall terminate on the expiry of two hours . . . unless it is concluded earlier. Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period .... the motion shall be put to vote .... (4) The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merits of the motion. (5) The Presiding Officer shall declare the results of the voting. . . unless it is concluded earlier. Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period .... the motion shall be put to vote .... (4) The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merits of the motion. (5) The Presiding Officer shall declare the results of the voting. The motion shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. (6) . . . . . . . (7) Where the motion has been carried the Pradhan shall stand removed from his office with effect from a date to be specified by the prescribed authority in a notice". Under Sec. 11 (2) in any meeting of a Gaon Sabha one-fifth of the number of the members shall form the quorum. A special meeting of the Gaon Sabha was called once in February, 1963 to discuss a motion for removal of the petitioner from the office of Pradhan and the motion was passed but the motion was quashed by this Court. Thereafter on 6-4-1965 a written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the petitioner from the office of Pradhan purporting to have been signed by 250 members out of 460 members of the Gaon Sabha was delivered by five members signing it to the prescribed authority. It was stated in the notice that the motion was intended to be moved on account of certain misdeeds of the petitioner. The prescribed authority convened a meeting of the Gaon Sabha on 5-5-1965 to discuss the motion under Sec. 14. It was stated in the notice that the motion was intended to be moved on account of certain misdeeds of the petitioner. The prescribed authority convened a meeting of the Gaon Sabha on 5-5-1965 to discuss the motion under Sec. 14. The petitioner made an application on 1-5-1965 to the prescribed authority stating that he had heard that a notice of the intention to move a motion for his removal had been delivered to the prescribed authority and that it was invalid because signatures of six persons were forged, they being dead, names of twelve persons as written in the notice did not tally with their names written in the register part II, one person had signed the notice twice and signatures of many people were obtained on the notice without their being informed of its contents or by fraud being practised upon them and if the signatures of the above persons were ignored the notice would be found not to be signed by at least one-half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha. The prayer made by him in the application was that the matter be enquired into before convening a meeting and that the meeting convened for 5-5-65 be postponed. On 3-5-1965 the prescribed authority rejected the application after getting the matter A enquired into through an Assistant Block Development Officer. He found that only four of the persons who were supposed to have signed the notice were dead, that the name of one signatory did not find place in the register part II and the signature was to be ignored, that one person had signed twice and so one signature was to be ignored and that some clerical mistakes in the register part II were to be ignored and that only one person had said that his signature had been obtained on the notice without his being informed of the contents and so his signature was to be ignored. He found that the total number of members in the register Part II was 460, that the total number of persons signing the notice was 250 and that only 17 signatures were to be ignored. He found 233 signatures valid and as this number was more than one-half of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha he held the notice to be valid. He found 233 signatures valid and as this number was more than one-half of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha he held the notice to be valid. The meeting was held on 5-5-1965 and was attended by 258 members. The petitioner was absent. The notice was read over by the Presiding Officer to the Gaon Sabha and the motion was allowed to be discussed for two hours. Then votes were taken and the motion was declared to have been carried because 232 votes were cast in favour of it. The petitioner 'filed this petition for certiorari for the quashing of the notice and the proceedings of the meeting and mandamus requiring the prescribed authority to dispose of the petitioners application dated 1-5-1965 and restraining the opposite-parties from giving effect to the motion. The main ground on which the petition is based is that the prescribed authority without holding an enquiry into the petitioners application after due notice to him acted in contravention of Rule 33-B. The petition is opposed by the opposite parties. They contend that on receipt of the application the petitioner was informed that it would be enquired into on 3-5-1965, that one of the opposite parties enquired into it, summoned the petitioner who did not present himself during the enquiry and found the allegations made in the application untrue, that the enquiry was made from all persons who were available and that it was not within the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority to enquire into the application. 3. I have reproduced the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules; it is obvious that there is no provision in either for any objection against acting on a notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan and an enquiry into it. The Act does not deal with the procedure to be followed for passing a motion for removal of a Pradhan; it has left it to be prescribed by Rules. The only rule laying down the procedure is Rule 33-B. Not only is there no express provision for an objection or an enquiry into an objection but also the provisions suggest that no objection and no enquiry into an objection are contemplated by the State Government which has made the Rules. 4. The only rule laying down the procedure is Rule 33-B. Not only is there no express provision for an objection or an enquiry into an objection but also the provisions suggest that no objection and no enquiry into an objection are contemplated by the State Government which has made the Rules. 4. A notice of the intention is required to be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha and a Gaon Sabha consists of all adults ordinarily resident within the area of the Gaon Sabha barring those who are not citizens of India or are of unsound mind; see Sec. 5. Thus a Gaon Sabha consists of hundreds of members and the Gaon Sabha with which we are concerned consists of 460 members. A written notice is, therefore, required to be signed by hundreds of persons. Allegations may be made not only that some signatures are forged but also that they have been obtained fraudulently or under duress. A signature obtained fraudulently is in the eye of law no signature because fraud vitiates everything. Similarly a signature obtained under duress is also of no effect. A notice of the intention is to be signed by members; so if a member has not the intention he cannot sign it or his signature is of no avail. If a member is coerced into signing it without his having the intention it amounts to his not signing a notice of the intention. Now if an objection is filed either by the Pradhan or by some other members that signatures on the notice are forged or are obtained by fraud or coercion a long-drawn enquiry will become necessary. Allegations may be made about hundreds of signatures and an enquiry into the question whether the signatures were forged or not or were obtained by fraud or duress or not may last months. It could never have been the intention of the State Government behind the Rule (that a notice must be signed by at least one-half of the members) that the prescribed authority should proceed to enquire whether the signatures are genuine and were obtained without resort to fraud or coercion. It could never have been the intention of the State Government behind the Rule (that a notice must be signed by at least one-half of the members) that the prescribed authority should proceed to enquire whether the signatures are genuine and were obtained without resort to fraud or coercion. If such enquiry were to be held the whole object behind Sec. 14 of the Act and Rule 33-B may be frustrated; a Pradhan or his supporters may by making wild allegations about hundreds of the signatures on a notice prolong the enquiry so that it is not completed even before the expiry of his term. 5. The prescribed authority is required to convene a meeting "as soon as may be after the receipt of the notice"; it has not to waste any time in convening a meeting. It follows that it has not to waste time in holding any enquiry. 6. There is no provision that the prescribed authority is to be satisfied that the notice has been signed by at least one-half of the members; it is not required even to form an opinion. The very next act it is required to do after receiving the notice is to convene a meeting. If the notice purports to be the one referred to in rule 33-B (1) it is enough,. In para. 2 of the rule no such words as "duly made under paragraph 1" are added after the words "after the receipt of the notice." It is true that if a notice is not signed by one-half of the members it is not a notice contemplated by Rule 33-B and is not required to be acted upon by a meeting being convened. The prescribed authority in order to find whether it is signed by one-half of the members or not must count the signatures. Just as on its finding that it is not signed by at least one-half of the members it is required to desist from convening a meeting so also, it may be said with force, it is required to desist from convening a meeting on its finding (1) that some signatures are not of members of the particular Gaon Sabha or are forged or obtained by fraud or duress and (2) that if they are discarded the remaining signatures are not of at least one-half of the members. Since the Rule requires that a notice must be signed by at least one-half of the members the prescribed authority cannot act on it if it is not so signed, but it does not follow that it has to make an enquiry. If a prescribed authority finds that some signatures are not of members of [he Gaon Sabha or are forged or otherwise invalid and the remaining signatures are insufficient it would be bound to desist from convening a meeting but the question before us is different, it being whether it is required by any rule to make an enquiry. There may be no provision forbidding an enquiry but that also is immaterial because the law does not require everything not forbidden to be done. The most that can be said is that the matter is at the discretion of the prescribed authority; if a complaint is made to it that a material number of signatures is invalid it may in its discretion make an enquiry or refuse to make it. If it is a small enquiry it is justified in making it and if it is likely to turn out into a long-drawn enquiry or if it thinks that the complaint is not bona fide or is made with the ulterior object of delaying the convening of the meeting it is fully justified in not undertaking an enquiry. Another strong reason for saying that the State Government never contemplated any enquiry is that the prescribed authority is not required by the rules to be a judicial or even quasi-judicial authority. It may not be well-versed in law at all and may have no experience of deciding questions of fact and law. Any administrative authority can be appointed as the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority in the instant case is not one well-versed in law at all. Whether signatures are forged or not and whether they are obtained by fraud or coercion or not are questions of fact and law and by no means simple questions. The State Government never contemplated that a prescribed authority would be called upon to decide them. 7. Whether signatures are forged or not and whether they are obtained by fraud or coercion or not are questions of fact and law and by no means simple questions. The State Government never contemplated that a prescribed authority would be called upon to decide them. 7. The requirement that a notice must be signed by at least half of the members is for the purpose of ensuring that there is a demand by a majority of the members for removal of the Pradhan and that the convening of meeting of the Gaon Sabha would not be futile. A meeting of the whole Gaon Sabha consisting of hundreds of members and presided over by a prescribed authority or its nominee means inconvenience and loss of time to so many people and should not be convened lightly. Whatever time is spent on it should not be wasted. Further, allegations should not be made against a Pradhan light-heartedly and he should not be in fear of being called upon to defend a motion for his removal again and again. It is for these reasons that the State Government laid down that a notice must be signed by at least half of the members. It is a precautionary step to prevent waste of time and inconvenience to hundreds of persons. Once a meeting is held the question of the precautionary step ceases to exist; then the only question is whether the motion is carried or not. If it is not carried the Pradhan and his supporters have no grievance at all. If it is carried it would be anomalous to quash the proceedings of the meeting and the resolution passed by it simply on the ground that the notice was not signed by at least half the members. Once the motion is carried there arises no question of the precautionary step; the very fact that it is carried confirms that there was an intention in the minds of at least half the members to move for removal of the Pradhan. If at least half the members had the intention it should not matter if they all did not express it in the notice and it was expressed by only some of them. If at least half the members had the intention it should not matter if they all did not express it in the notice and it was expressed by only some of them. After all whether a Pradhan should be removed or not depends upon whether two-thirds of the members vote in support of the motion for his removal and not upon whether at least half of the members had signed the notice. Their signing the notice was only a precautionary measure for preventing waste of time and energy and as the passing of the motion means that there was no waste of time and energy it is wholly unnecessary to consider whether the precaution for preventing the waste had been taken or not. After the motion has been carried the fact that the meeting was convened on a notice not signed by at least half the members is only a technical irregularity not causing any prejudice to anyone and a High Court is not to use certiorari just for curing technical irregularities not affecting the merits of the case; see K. N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore, 1955 (1) SCR 305 at page 310. A motion for removal of a Pradhan is carried if two-third of the members present and voting at the meeting vote for it. The quorum for a meeting is one-fifth of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha. This means that a motion for removal of a Pradhan may be carried if 2/15th of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha vote for it. There is undoubtedly a disparity between the number of the members required to sign the notice and the number of members required for carrying the motion but this does not detract from the argument that after the motion has been carried any irregularity in the notice becomes irrelevant and cannot be made a ground for quashing the proceedings in the meeting. In the first place it is only in theory that a motion for removal of a Pradhan is carried by only 2/15th of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha. In practice the meeting is attended by most of the members. In the first place it is only in theory that a motion for removal of a Pradhan is carried by only 2/15th of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha. In practice the meeting is attended by most of the members. Only one-third of the persons present and voting are required for defeating the motion and, therefore, the sponsors of the motion and the Pradhan try their best to have as many of their supporters present in the meeting as possible. The legislature did not expect that only one-fifth of the members will attend such a meeting and the State Government also did not expect that only the minimum number of members will be present when it enacted the rule that the notice must be signed by at least one-half of the members of the Gaon Sabha and the motion may be carried by majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Therefore, it is not likely to happen in practice that though a meeting is convened on a notice signed by less than one-half of the total number of the members the motion is carried by the votes of a still smaller number of the members. 8. It was conceded on behalf of the petitioner that presenting before the prescribed authority a notice containing forged signatures is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Deceiving members into signing the notice by concealing its contents or intimidating them to sign it also is an offence. The fact that these acts are punishable as offences is a sufficient safeguard against a notice being signed by a large number of impersonators or by persons deceived or coerced into signing it. That may account for the absence of a provision requiring an enquiry into the question whether at least one-half of the members of the Gaon Sabha have signed it in token of their intention to move for the Pradhan's removal. 9. Under Sec. 11, first proviso, a Pradhan on a requisition in writing by not less than one-fifth of the number of the members must within 30 days from the receipt call an extraordinary general meeting. There is nothing to suggest that he may spend days and even months in enquiring whether the signatures on the requisition are genuine or not or are obtained without resort to fraud or coercion or not. There is nothing to suggest that he may spend days and even months in enquiring whether the signatures on the requisition are genuine or not or are obtained without resort to fraud or coercion or not. If it cannot be said that he is bound to make an enquiry it cannot be said that the prescribed authority is bound to make an enquiry on receipt of a notice under Rule 33-B. Injustice and anomalies can be imagined but what is certain is that an enquiry may take a long time and may be followed by applications for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, in turn followed by appeals from orders on the applications. Then the prescribed authority has no power to summon witnesses and documents and it is not understood how it can hold an enquiry. Naturally there is no provision for making it a judicial proceeding and the prescribed authority is not given protection against contempt of its authority and disobedience of its orders. If it has to hold an enquiry many questions will arise to which no answer is to be found in the Rules. For instance, the questions of the procedure to be followed in the enquiry, who can make it, in whose presence it is to be made, whether an appeal lies from any finding or decision given in the enquiry, who should bear the costs of the enquiry and whether it should include an enquiry into the truth of the reasons stated in the notice for moving the motion. If the truth of the reasons for moving the motion cannot be enquired into why should it be said that the other matters mentioned in paragraph 1 of Rule 33-B should be enquired into ? One may also say that if the State Government had contemplated an enquiry it would have made rules similar to Rules 4-G and 4-H. 10. There is no third party before the prescribed authority in the interval between its receiving the notice and its convening the meeting; there are only itself and the signatories who deliver the notice to it. The Pradhan is not there before it nor any of his supporters. Consequently there is no occasion for any objection being filed against any of the signatures. Neither the Pradhan nor any of his supporters has a right to appear before it with any objection; they have no locus standi at all. The Pradhan is not there before it nor any of his supporters. Consequently there is no occasion for any objection being filed against any of the signatures. Neither the Pradhan nor any of his supporters has a right to appear before it with any objection; they have no locus standi at all. Whether a meeting should be convened or not is a matter only between the prescribed authority and the signatories delivering the notice to it. The prescribed authority has to act on its finding that the notice has been signed by at least half the members and has been presented by at least five of the signatories. As nobody has a right to file any objection the question of his holding an enquiry simply does not arise. Whatever enquiry is made by it is made entirely at its own discretion and nobody has a right to compel it to make it. Obviously there cannot be a right in any person to compel it to make it when he has not been given a right to file an objection. 11. Raj Kishore Dube v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur, Special Appeal No. 529 of 1965 decided on 8-10-1965 by a bench of which I was a member took the same view. The contrary view has been taken by Bhargava and B. D. Gupta, JJ. in the District Panchayat Officer v. Jai Bir Singh, 1963 ALJ 272. The learned Judges observed that "it is ... . clear from a reading of the rule" (rule 33-B) "that, in case .... an objection is taken before the prescribed authority, it would be necessary for the prescribed authority to enquire into it and record a finding." I have reproduced the rule and find in words in it justifying this observation. The learned Judges have not noted the distinction between a prescribed authority's finding that the notice is in accordance with the Rules and its being required to make an enquiry before arriving at the finding. They have referred to an objection against notice but have not discussed what right any person has to file it. They observed that the duty of determining whether the signatures are genuine or not is cast on the prescribed authority because it is entrusted with the duty of convening a meeting; I respectfully dissent from the view that the latter duty necessarily gives rise to the former duty. They observed that the duty of determining whether the signatures are genuine or not is cast on the prescribed authority because it is entrusted with the duty of convening a meeting; I respectfully dissent from the view that the latter duty necessarily gives rise to the former duty. The law laid down by the learned Judges in that case cannot be said to be the correct law. 12. There is a good reason for saying that even if it be held that a prescribed authority is bound to enquire into an objection against the notice the present petition cannot succeed. It is that the only opposite parties to the petition are the prescribed authority and the authority presiding over the meeting of the Gaon Sabha; none of the signatories of the notice, of the signatories delivering it to the prescribed authority and of the members of the Gaon Sabha who voted in support of the motion are opposite parties. The meeting was convened on the notice signed by certain members and presented by some of them; to hold that the convening of the meeting on the notice was illegal, without giving them an opportunity to be heard, infringes a principle of natural justice. Similarly in the absence of the members voting in support of the motion the proceedings of the meetings and the motion passed in it cannot be quashed. The matter is not only between the Pradhan and the prescribed authority and the presiding officer; there is a third party, namely the signatories, the persons delivering the notice and the members voting in support of the motion. This matter has not been considered by the learned Judges in Jai Bir Singh's case, 1963 ALJ 272. 13. The petitioner's counsel referred us to Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 233 and Radha Kishan Jaikishan v. Municipal Committee, A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 62. What was relied upon in the former case is an observation of Venkatarama Ayyar, J. at page 248 that "when the law prescribes that the intention should be expressed in a particular manner, it can be taken into account only if it is so expressed." This does not mean that a party has a right to question the expression of the intention and that the authority having to act on the intention must enquire into the objection. As I pointed out the question whether a meeting can be convened if the notice is not signed by at least half the members is distinct from the question whether an enquiry should be made or not whether the signatures are genuine. The second case was relied upon for the general rule as to notice of meetings. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether the notice convening the meeting was valid or not; no defect in the notice is alleged at all. Moreover it is by no means clear to me that a meeting convened to discuss a motion for removal of Pradhan can be said to be a statutory meeting. 14. I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that a prescribed authority is not required to make any enquiry on receipt of a notice of the intention to move for removal of a Pradhan. Actually here the prescribed authority made some enquiry; it made whatever enquiry it considered necessary. Certainly it was not required to do anything more. It had given an opportunity to the petitioner to be present during the enquiry and the petitioner himself is to blame if he was absent. 15. I see no force in this petition and would dismiss it with costs. L. Prasad, J. - I agree and have nothing to add. R. N. Sharma, J.- I agree with the final order proposed by My Lord the Chief Justice. However, I do not agree that a prescribed authority is not required to make any enquiry on receipt of a notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of a Pradhan. It is for some purpose that provision has been made in rule 33-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules that the notice shall be signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha and shall be delivered in person by at least five members signing the notice, to the prescribed authority. Obviously, the object of making such a provision is to avoid frivolous motions and to prevent harassment to the Pradhan and inconvenience to the members of the Gaon Sabha and also to avoid waste of public time. Obviously, the object of making such a provision is to avoid frivolous motions and to prevent harassment to the Pradhan and inconvenience to the members of the Gaon Sabha and also to avoid waste of public time. The notice has to be a genuine notice and for this special provision has been that it shall be delivered to the prescribed authority in person by five members signing the notice. Signatures of not less than one half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha have to be appended to the written notice and signatures mean genuine signatures and not forged signatures and not more than one signature of the same person. 2. There is always possibility of mistake and fraud in matters involving party politics and factions in a public body. Quite often members of a public body or institution are actuated by personal motives and it is possible that they may include signatures of wrong persons or may even forge signatures of dead persons on a notice of a move of no-confidence particularly when a large number of signatures have to be made on the notice as in the instant case where about 250 signatures were made. The possibility of mistakes and fraud is borne out by the fact that as many as 17 signatures made on the notice of motion of non-confidence against this Pradhan were found by the prescribed authority to be invalid. There can be cases in which a larger number of signatures may be found invalid and if in such a case the prescribed authority refuses to make any enquiry whatsoever, a large number of invalid signatures may be included in the notice but for which the notice may not be in conformity with the rule. 3. It is true that there is no provision in the Act or rules for making such enquiry but when provision is made in the rule prescribing the number of signatories and the number of the signatories who are to deliver the notice in person to the prescribed authority, the need for an enquiry is inherent in a case in which the person likely to be affected raises the objection about the genuineness of some of the signatures. 4. 4. Because there is no specific provision in the Act or the rules, it cannot be said that the prescribed authority is not bound to make enquiry when an objection is filed before it. The prescribed authority should satisfy itself that the notice of no-confidence is technically correct according to Rule 33-B and for this purpose it will have to satisfy itself on the points that may be raised in the objection. However, it will not be necessary for the prescribed authority to enter upon a detailed enquiry. The objection of the person affected has to be specific and the prescribed authority shall make enquiry on the specific points. In the absence of a prescribed procedure, the manner in which the enquiry is to be held will be left to the prescribed authority and it will make such summary enquiry as it may deem fit for its own satisfaction. The prescribed authority will not go into difficult questions of fraud and duress but it will have to make general enquiry if there is specific allegation that a particular signature of a living person is forged or that a signature is of a person who is dead. The members of the Gaon Sabha concerned will be residents of one village and it will not be difficult or cumbersome for the prescribed authority to make enquiry into such specific allegations. Of course, it will not be necessary for him to make enquiry into vague allegations. I do not see any difficulty if the prescribed authority makes summary enquiry into specific, allegations of forgery etc. It can easily ascertain the fact whether X who is shown to have signed the notice, admits to have signed it or not. Similarly, it can easily find out whether whose signature appears on the notice, is in fact dead or alive. The rules of natural justice make it incumbent on the prescribed authority to make enquiry into specific allegation of the person likely to be affected. The rule of natural justice comes into play in such a case because a Pradhan is likely to be harassed by a motion of no confidence and if he alleges that the notice is not in order by reason of the fact that the required number of signatures are not appended thereto, the prescribed authority must hold some enquiry and satisfy itself as to the correctness of the Pradhan's allegations. There may be cases in which the prescribed authority may on enquiry be satisfied that the notice does not bear the required number of genuine signatures and a meeting may not then be called at all and the Pradhan may be saved by the harassment and botheration. I am of the view that where specific objections as to the genuineness of the signatures are raised by a Pradhan against a notice of motion for his removal, it is necessary for the prescribed authority to make enquiry and satisfy itself that the notice bears the required number of signatures of members of the Gaon Sabha. I had held similar view in Writ Petition No. 156 of 1963 decided on 8-4-1964 which had been filed by this very petitioner against the same opposite parties. 5. However, I find that there has been sufficient compliance of the requirement as aforesaid by the prescribed authority in this case and the question of law remains more or less of an academic interest. From the counter-affidavit filed by the prescribed authority it appears that on receipt of objections the prescribed authority made enquiry and satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the signatures. The prescribed authority found that signatures were invalid and so many signatures were excluded. Even after excluding the invalid signatures the notice was found to bear the required number of good signatures. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given sufficient opportunity by the prescribed authority to have his say in the matter. It appears, however, that the prescribed authority asked the petitioner to help it in the enquiry but the petitioner did not co-operate. It was thus the petitioner's own fault and the prescribed authority could not compel him to co-operate. The petitioner cannot now be allowed to say that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his objections. It is a question of fact whether or not the prescribed authority made sufficient enquiry and satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the required number of signatures. This court cannot in writ jurisdiction enter into a disputed question of fact and we must accept the prescribed authoritys counter affidavit and hold that the prescribed authority made sufficient enquiry and satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the required number of signatures. This court cannot in writ jurisdiction enter into a disputed question of fact and we must accept the prescribed authoritys counter affidavit and hold that the prescribed authority made sufficient enquiry and satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the required number of signatures. Thus there has been sufficient compliance of the law and the proceedings of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner cannot be quashed. 6. Furthermore, the question of enquiry into the objections of the petitioner loses much of its importance because now the motion of no-confidence has been carried out and the opinion of the voters in the matter has been given effect to. Even if the prescribed authority had not made enquiry into the petitioners objections, it would not be said at this stage that any prejudice was caused to him by the failure to make enquiry. 7. For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the petition with costs. Petition dismissed.