JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - The Municipal Board, Gorakhpur, consists of 38 members. The petitioner was elected a member of the Board in the General Elections held in November 1964. In December, 1964 he was elected President of the Board. On May 31, 1966, a written notice of intention to move a motion of non-confidence in the President signed by 21 members of the Board was presented to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate convened the meeting of the Board for July 4, 1966, for considering the motion of non-confidence. On July 1, 1966, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2136 of 1966 before this Court and on that very date this Court issued an ex parte interim order directing the respondents not to hold the meeting on July 4, 1966. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on July 12, 1966, and the interim order was vacated. Thereupon the District Magistrate fixed August 1, 1966, for the meeting. At the meeting held on that date all the 38 members of the Board were present. After the voting it was declared that the motion of non-confidence was passed by 22 votes to 16. The petitioner has now filed this petition for quashing the proceedings of the meeting held on August 1, 1966. 2. The only ground on which the validity of the proceedings is challenged is that the Presiding Officer adopted a novel method of voting not prescribed by law. What the Presiding Officer did to ascertain the view of the majority is this. He prepared 38 "ballot papers". At the top of each one of these were written the words "motion expressing non-confidence in Sri Lakshmi Shanker Khare, President, Municipal Board, Gorakhpur". Each paper was divided into two parts by a line drawn horizontally across the middle. Above the line was f-written "supported by" and below the line was written "opposed by". He explained to the members present that those who supported the motion of non-confidence should sign above the line and those who opposed the motion should sign below the line. The "ballot papers" were distributed to the 38 members and they were asked one by one to go to the table of the Presiding Officer and there to sign the ballot papers, either above the line or below the line according as they desired to support or oppose the motion. The "ballot papers" were distributed to the 38 members and they were asked one by one to go to the table of the Presiding Officer and there to sign the ballot papers, either above the line or below the line according as they desired to support or oppose the motion. After all the 38 members present had signed the papers, they were counted and it was found that 22 persons had voted in support of the motion and 16 against it. The case of the petitioner is that at a meeting held for considering a motion of non-confidence in the , President the only method of voting permissible under the law is voting by show of hands. Sub-secs. (9) and (12) of Sec. of the Municipalities Act for consideration 87 of the U. P. Municipalities Act which govern this matter read as follows: "(9) Such discussion shall automatically terminate on the expiry of three hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, unless it is concluded earlier. Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of three hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the board. (12) The motion shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of more than half of the total number of members of the board." These provisions do not lay down the method of voting; nor is the method of voting at such meetings prescribed by the rules or regulations framed under the Act. Sri. S.C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that were not method of voting is prescribed voting means "voting by show of hands" and by no other method. According to him, this is the common law of England and he has referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 9 , pages 52 and 53 where it is stated: "At common law votes at all meetings are taken by a show of hands followed, if necessary, by a poll; and, in the absence of any special provision to the contrary in the constitution of a particular corporation the common law method must prevail. Voting by show of hands means counting persons present who are entitled to vote and who choose to vote by holding up their hands. Voting by show of hands means counting persons present who are entitled to vote and who choose to vote by holding up their hands. Where a corporate vote is authorised by the Constitution, bye-law, statute, or otherwise, to be taken in a particular manner, every corporator has at common law a right, immediately at the conclusion of the taking of such vote, to demand a poll unless such right is clearly taken away by the statute or special custom." 3. He has invited my attention to several decisions where the common law relating to meetings has been applied in India. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to two decisions of this Court in which part of the common law relating to meetings, namely, that relating to the taking of the poll, has been held in applicable to a meeting held under Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act for consideration of a motion of non-confidence. In Molvi Abdul Wajid v. State of U.P., 1955 A.L.J. 593 V. Bhargava, J. (as he then was) referring to the latter part of the statement contained in Hals-bury's Laws of England, quoted above, observed: "This rule of common law prevails in England for dealing with the corporate vote and is not necessarily applicable to the proceedings of special meetings of municipal Boards held under the provisions of Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act." In Lakshmi Narain Shukla v. State of U.P., 1959 A.L.J. 853, Oak, J. was of the view that the common law of England as to the right to demand a poll had not become the common law in India and that it was in the discretion of the Presiding Officer, in a meeting held under Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act, to allow or to disallow the taking of a poll. In my opinion, the common law of England regarding voting at meetings cannot be said to have become part of sub-Sec. (9) of Section 87-A making it obligatory upon the Presiding Officer to take the vote by show of hands and by no other method. Sri Khare relied strongly upon a Division Bench decision of M.P. High Court in Sojharmal Sawandas v. Municipal Council, Kharsia, 1964 M.P. L.J. 293. That was also a case of a meeting held for the purpose of considering a motion of non-confidence in the President of the municipal council. Sri Khare relied strongly upon a Division Bench decision of M.P. High Court in Sojharmal Sawandas v. Municipal Council, Kharsia, 1964 M.P. L.J. 293. That was also a case of a meeting held for the purpose of considering a motion of non-confidence in the President of the municipal council. It was held there that the mode of voting by ballot for the motion of non-confidence was clearly illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. In that case the learned Judges were concerned with the provisions of Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Sub-clause (iii) of sub-sec. (3) of Section 62 of the Act provides that the minutes of the proceedings recorded under sub-sec. (1) shall include, when such decision is not unanimous, the number of votes and the names of councillors voting for and against such question and the names of those who have remained neutral. Votes have been taken by division or otherwise. They held that the result of the application of this provision was that the minutes of the proceedings of a meeting at which a no confidence motion was moved and put to vote must show the names of the councillors voting for and against the motion and that this requirement would be impossible of compliance if voting on a motion of no; confidence were to be by the method of ballot. They accordingly came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act prohibited voting by ballot. We have nothing in our like the provision contained in sub-clause (iii) of sub-Sec. (3) of Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act. There is no provision in our Act from which a necessary inference can be drawn that voting by ballot is prohibited. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has no application to the present case. It is not correct to say that sub-Sec. (9) of Section 87-A prescribes any particular method of voting much less that it prescribes voting only by show of hands and prohibits voting by any other method. In my judgment, this subsection leaves it to the discretion of the Presiding Officer to adopt such method of voting as he considers proper. It is not correct to say that sub-Sec. (9) of Section 87-A prescribes any particular method of voting much less that it prescribes voting only by show of hands and prohibits voting by any other method. In my judgment, this subsection leaves it to the discretion of the Presiding Officer to adopt such method of voting as he considers proper. In adopting a method of voting different from that by show of hands the Presiding Officer did not contravene any statutory provision of law and, therefore, the proceedings of the meeting cannot be held to be illegal. 4. Even if it were assumed that the only permissible method of voting at the meeting was by show of hands no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the adoption of the method evolved by the Presiding Officer and for that reason also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It has not been stated anywhere in the writ petition that the petitioner had raised any objection to the voting by "ballot papers". It is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that no such objection was raised either by the petitioner or his supporters. From the minutes of the meeting, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner, also it appears that no such objection was raised. In the rejoinder affidavit an assertion has been made that an objection to the method of voting was raised at the meeting itself. I am not prepared to accept this assertion in the rejoinder affidavit. I am satisfied that no objection was raised by the petitioner or his supporters at the meeting. Having submitted, and impliedly agreed, to this method of voting the petitioner should not be permitted now to challenge it as illegal. Then, there is no allegation whatsoever that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner by this method of voting. In fact, the method of voting was a very fair one which ensured the correct recording of the opinion of the members of the Board. It appears from the counter affidavit that the procedure was properly explained by the Presiding Officer to the members present and they were clearly told that those who supported the motion should sign above the line and those who opposed the motion should sign below the line. It appears from the counter affidavit that the procedure was properly explained by the Presiding Officer to the members present and they were clearly told that those who supported the motion should sign above the line and those who opposed the motion should sign below the line. They were further told that if there was any difficulty they could have it clarified by the Presiding Officer when they came to sign their ballot papers before him. The method of voting was very simple and there could not have been any difficulty in any member of the Board in understanding the same. One grievance raised by the petitioner is that the ballot paper was in English and some of the members of the Board did not know English. For recording their votes on the ballot papers it was not necessary for the members to know English. They were not required to read anything in the ballot paper. They had been clearly told that if they desired to support the motion of non-confidence they should sign above the line and if they desired to oppose it they should sign below the line. Lack of knowledge of the English language could not at all hamper any member of the Board front recording his vote in accordance with his wishes. The record of the proceedings of the meeting were placed before me by the learned Junior Standing Counsel. I have seen all the ballot papers. Every member has signed clearly either above the line or below the line and there appears to be no confusion in the signing of the ballot papers. It further appears that all the 21 persons who had signed the notice of the motion of non-confidence have voted in favour of the motion. In addition to these 21 persons, one other member, namely, Makkhan Lal Gupta also signed above the line and voted for the motion. From this it is obvious that there was no confusion at the voting and that all the 21 persons who had signed the notice of motion of non-confidence voted for the motion. It does not appear that any persons who were against the motion were misled by this method of voting into voting for the motion. It also cannot be said that the Presiding Officer invented a novel and unknown method of voting. It does not appear that any persons who were against the motion were misled by this method of voting into voting for the motion. It also cannot be said that the Presiding Officer invented a novel and unknown method of voting. A somewhat similar method of voting was prescribed for the election of the Chairman of municipal boards by Section 44 of the U. P. Municipalities (Supplementary and Validation) Act, 1951. By the adoption of this method of voting no prejudice or injury has been caused to the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is without force and it accordingly dismissed with costs.