S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. ( 2 ) THE writ petition No. 12301 of 1997 was filed against the order dated 29. 3. 1997 whereby the district Panchayat Raj Officer convened a meeting of the concerned Gram Panchayat for discussion on the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner under Section 14 of the u. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 33-B of the Rules made under the Act. By interim order dated 8. 4. 1997 passed in the said writ petition, it was provided that in case no-confidence motion was taken up and passed on the date fixed for discussion on the motion, it would not be given effect till the next date of listing of the case. During the pendency of the writ petition the meeting was held as scheduled on 17. 4. 1997. Ten elected members of the Gram Panchayat participated in the meeting and out of ten, seven voted in favour of the motion and three against the motion. The motion was accordingly declared passed by the Presiding Officer. The minutes of the meeting were brought on the record by means of amendment application No. 56552 of 1997, and the writ petition No. 40960 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner on 2. 12. 1997 challenging the Notification dated 25. 11. 1997, whereby fresh election in the supposed vacancy which had resulted on account of the alleged removal of the petitioner was notified. On 11. 12. 1997 arguments were heard and following order was passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 40960 of 1997 : "arguments in the case have been circumscribed to only two points firstly that Pradhan being member of the Gram Panchayat should have been allowed to participate and cast his vote in the meeting convened for discussion on the motion of no-confidence brought against him and secondly that fractional vote should be rounded up while determining whether the motion has been carried out by 2/3rd majority of the members present one voting. No other points have been pressed into service by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since these are the questions of legal merits, no counter affidavit is called for. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the state authorities. Judgment reserved. No other points have been pressed into service by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since these are the questions of legal merits, no counter affidavit is called for. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the state authorities. Judgment reserved. " ( 3 ) HOWEVER, both the petitions were directed to be listed for further hearing in the supplementary cause list vide order dated 15. 12. 1997 and this is how the matter is up for further hearing. ( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the report dated 12. 9. 1997 submitted by the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40960 of 1997, it is clear that the petitioner was although present in the meeting but he was not allowed to cast his vote on the motion of no-confidence brought against him in the absence of any order to that effect by the District Panchayat Raj Officer and seven out of ten members of the Gram Panchayat voted in favour of the motion, as stated herein above. Pradhan is a member of the Gram Panchayat as visualised by Section 12 (6) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and by virtue of Article 243-C (4) of the Constitution a chairperson of the Panchayat is entitled to cast his vote at any meeting of the Gram Panchayat. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40873 of 1997, meera Devi v. State, decided on 7. 1. 1998. I have taken the view that Pradhan of the Gram panchayat is entitled to cast his vote at the meeting convened for the purpose of discussion on the motion of no-confidence brought against him under Section 14 and it has further been held in that case that if the requisite majority of two-thirds falls short by fraction, the fraction would be rounded off to the next whole number with a view to calculating the requisite majority of two-thirds. The petitioner, as stated herein above, was not allowed to cast his vote and if his vote had been taken into account, the motion would have lost in as much as requisite two-thirds majority out of eleven members comes to eight as against which only seven members voted in favour of the motion. The petitioner, as stated herein above, was not allowed to cast his vote and if his vote had been taken into account, the motion would have lost in as much as requisite two-thirds majority out of eleven members comes to eight as against which only seven members voted in favour of the motion. The motion, in my opinion, has wrongly been declared to have been passed. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances of the case, therefore, both the petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders and the proceedings for the motion of no-confidence as well as Notification dated 25. 11. 1997 and consequential election held pursuant thereto are quashed. The petitioner shall stand restored to the office of the Pradhan. .