JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Kakrala, no confidence motion was passed against her by eight panchas. The panchayat samiti has a strength of twelve panchas. The only ground on which the no confidence motion is challenged is, that Mst. Majidi who was not elected as panch from ward No. 11 was permitted to vote in place of Mst. Sayra who was declared as elected panch of the Gram Panchayat Kakrala. If the vote of Mst. Majidi is not counted then the motion of no confidence will not be supported by two-third of the elected members of the panchayat samiti. 2. The submission is based on Annexure-1 which is declaration of the result wherein one Mst. Sayra is declared elected for ward No. 11. The counsel for respondent submits that in fact Mst. Majidi was elected from ward No. 11 and not Mst. Sarya and this fact is clear from Annexure-1 itself wherein it is recorded that Mst. Majidi has secured 332 votes whereas Mst. Sayra secured 111 votes in the panchayat elections. Apart from this, in the various meetings of the panchayat samiti, which were presided over by the petitioner herself, shows that Mst. Majidi attended the meetings and participated in those proceedings. It appears that by clerical error name of Mst. Sayra was shown as declared elected candidate from ward No. 11 but in fact Mst. Majidi was elected from ward No. 11 and this fact was recognised by the petitioner herself when she had permitted Mst. Majidi to attend various meetings of the panchayat. The objection was raised at the time of no confidence motion and after seeing the record the Competent Authority has permitted Mst. Majidi to vote in no confidence motion. On perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that Mst. Majidi was the elected panch and she was rightly permitted to vote in the meeting of no confidence.For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. one thousand five hundred.Petition Dismissed with costs. *******