ORDER S.N. Dwivedi, J. - The Petitioner is the pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti constituted under the Zila Parishad and Kshettra Samitis Act (hereafter called the Act). The total membership of the Kshettra Samiti is 107. But at the time with which we are concerned one of the members was dead and the other had resigned. So at the relevant time the Kshettra Samiti consisted of 105 members only. 2. At that time notice of a motion of no confidence was given to the Collector concerned against the Petitioner. The notice purported to be signed by 56 members of the Kshettra Samiti. The Collector fixed a date for consideration of the motion and issued notice of the motion to the members. The meeting was held on the scheduled date. The motion was passed by 53 members out of 54 members present. The presiding officer declared the motion as having been validly passed by the requisite majority. Hence this petition. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that signatures of 15 of the members in the notice of the motion of no confidence were procured by fraud. The Petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Collector. But the Collector did not make any enquiry about the genuineness of the 15 signatures. Seven of the members signing it had submitted an affidavit to the Collector asserting that their signatures were obtained under misrepresentation. He relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court. According to the Division Bench decision the Collector should have made an enquiry. But the said decision has now been over-ruled by a Full Bench decision of this Court. Mathura Prasad v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer 1966 ALJ 612 : 1966 AWR 765 (1). According to the Full Bench the Collector has got no power to make any such enquiry. The point therefore fails. 4. It is next urged that four of the persons attending the meeting in which the notice of the motion of no confidence was considered were imposters. This fact is denied by the Respondents in their counter affidavit. It is a question of fact and cannot be enquired into, in the present proceeding. This point also fails. 5. 4. It is next urged that four of the persons attending the meeting in which the notice of the motion of no confidence was considered were imposters. This fact is denied by the Respondents in their counter affidavit. It is a question of fact and cannot be enquired into, in the present proceeding. This point also fails. 5. It is then submitted that as on the death and resignation of two of the members there was no declaration of vacancy in their posts, it may be deemed that the Kshettra Samiti; consisted of 107 members at the relevant time. Counsel has been unable to refer me to any provision in the Act in regard to the declaration of vacancies. It appears to me that when a member dies, there is a vacancy, As regards the member who resigned, by virtue of Section 11(2) his; resignation took effect as soon as the notice of his resignation was received by the Kshettra Samiti. 6. Lastly, it is submitted that even though one member was dead and the other had resigned, the total membership of the Kshettra Samiti was 107, at the relevant time. In support of this argument, counsel relies on the second proviso to Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6. 7. Section 6 deals with the composition of the Kshettra Samiti. Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 says that all Pradhans of constituent Gaon Sabhas shall be members of the Kshettra Samiti. At the relevant time the two vacancies were in the office of the pradhans of the two Gaon Sabhas. The second proviso to Sub-section (2) provides that during the period of vacancy in the office of Pradhan the person, if any, holding: the office of Up pradhan, shall be entitled to attend the meetings of the Kshettra Samiti in place of the Pradhan. On the basis of this provision it is urged that the two Up Pradhans of the two Gaon Sabhas would become members of the Kshettra Samiti and would be entitled to attend the meeting which considered the motion of no confidence. In this way, the total membership still consisted of 107 members. I am unable to accept this argument. 8. Section 6, as already stated, provides for the membership of the Kshettra Samiti. Section 15 deals with the motion of no confidence. In this way, the total membership still consisted of 107 members. I am unable to accept this argument. 8. Section 6, as already stated, provides for the membership of the Kshettra Samiti. Section 15 deals with the motion of no confidence. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that a written notice of intention to make the motion signed by at least half of the total number of members of the Kshettra Samiti for the time being shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector. Sub-section (3) provides that the Collector shall thereupon convene a meeting of the Kshettra Samiti for considering the motion. He shall also give to the members of the Kshettra Samiti notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting. Sub-section (ii) provides that if the motion is carried with the support of more than half of the total number of members of the Kshettra Samiti for the time being, it shall be deemed to have been passed. It will appear from the provisions of Section 15 that notice of the motion of no confidence can be signed only by the members of the Kshettra Samiti. Notice of the meeting for considering the motion goes only to the members of the Kshettra Samiti. According to Sub-section (11) the motion is to be passed by more than half of the total number of members. Who are members of the Kshettra Samiti, is described in Section 6. It has already been mentioned that all the pradhans of the constituent Gaon Sabhas are members of the Kshettra Samiti. 9. It has now to be considered whether during the period of vacancy in the office of Pradhan the Up Pradhan becomes a member of the Kshettra Samiti. The second Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 6 does not call the Up Pradhan as a member of the Kshettra Samiti. It enables him only to attend and vote in the meetings of the Kshettra Samiti. It does not elevate him to the status of a member. He is a sort of a substitute with the right of vote. But he is not a full fledged member. Accordingly, it appears to me that he cannot sign the notice of the intention to move a motion of no confidence. Nor can he be given notice of the meeting by the Collector. He is a sort of a substitute with the right of vote. But he is not a full fledged member. Accordingly, it appears to me that he cannot sign the notice of the intention to move a motion of no confidence. Nor can he be given notice of the meeting by the Collector. In this view of the matter I am of opinion that at the relevant time the total membership of the Kshettra Samiti was 105 only. The motion was passed by 53 members. So it was passed by more than half of the members for the time being. The motion is, therefor, legally passed. 10. No other point has been pressed before me. The petition is dismissed with costs.