O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE only moot point for consideration in the present writ petition !s whether a motion of no-confidence brought against Smt. Nathiya Devl-respondent No. 4 who admittedly is elected pradhan of the village had been carried out in the meeting, which was convened on 16. 12. 1996 in pursuance of the notice issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer-respondent No. 1 (for short d. P. R. O. ) or not. in view of the admitted position that out of 11 members present and voting, only 7 members had voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence while four voted against it. ( 2 ) SMT. Nathiya Devi-respondent No. 4 was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhurchuni, block Dhata, in district Fatehpur on 20th April, 1995. On 20. 11. 1996, an application was moved duly signed by 9 members of the Gram Panchayat before the respondent No. 1 to convene a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4. Kuber sirigh-petitioner is the Up Pradhan of the village. He was also one of the signatories to the application. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice on 29. 11. 1996 to convene a meeting on 16. 12. 1996 in which a motion of no-confidence was to be put to vote after discussion, accordingly, the meeting was held in which out of 1 1 members, present and voting, seven members voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence ; four members voted against it. Respondent No. 1 held that the motion of no-confidence has not been carried out as it did not receive approval of two-thirds of the members present and voting. The petitioner, who was aggrieved with the decision of the respondent No. 1 made a number of representations and filed civil Misc. Writ No. 25409 of 1997 with the prayer that the respondent No. 1, be directed to declare that the no-confidence motion has been carried out. The said petition was finally disposed of on 6. 8. 1997 with the observation that the respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate speaking orders on the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent No. I has passed the Impugned order dated 15. 9. 1997. The said petition was finally disposed of on 6. 8. 1997 with the observation that the respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate speaking orders on the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent No. I has passed the Impugned order dated 15. 9. 1997. a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition by observing that the no-confidence motion has failed as signatories to the notice failed to muster the support of the two-thirds of the members present and voting in the meeting convened on 16. 12. 1996. It was maintained that respondent No. 4-Smt. Nathiya Devl continues to be Pradhan of the village. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed which was admitted on 27. 11. 1997 and the operation of the impugned order dated 15. 9. 1997. passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the representation of the petitioner was stayed till further orders. It appears that the D. P. R. O. . without realising the real import and implications of the order of stay dated 27. 11. 1997 passed by this Court directed the respondent no. 4 to hand over the charge to the petitioner on 12. 1. 1998. The respondent No. 4 was. perhaps, reluctant to hand over charge. An F. I. R. was lodged against her in pursuance of which she was arrested and subsequently bailed out. By order dated 27. 11. 1997 passed by this Court, the order dated 15. 9. 1997 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected was stayed. By no stretch of imagination it could be inferred from the stay order that no-confidence motion against the respondent No. 4 shall be deemed to have been carried out. The conduct of the respondent no. 1. who is highly responsible officer, cannot but be deprecated. The absurd interpretation put by the respondent No. 1 has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as. the respondent No. 4, an elected Pradhan and against whom vote of no-confidence had failed, had to suffer indignity and humiliation, as, she was taken into custody and sent to Jail for not handing over the charge. The absurd interpretation put by the respondent No. 1 has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as. the respondent No. 4, an elected Pradhan and against whom vote of no-confidence had failed, had to suffer indignity and humiliation, as, she was taken into custody and sent to Jail for not handing over the charge. In spite of the fact that there was no order of this Court to the effect that the respondent No. 4 shall hand over the charge to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 overplayed the controversy and forced the respondent No, 4 to hand over the charge. As to what action should be taken against Mahendra Singh, D. P. R. O. , Fatehpur-respondent No. 1, is a matter which can properly be dealt with by the departmental authorities. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by Mahendra Singh, respondent No. 1 Smt. Nathiya devi-respondent No. 4 has also filed a separate counter-affidavit. The petitioner. has filed a rejoinder-affidavit. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed by Smt. Nathiya Devi respondent No. 4 after she was released on bail and had been forcibly stripped off the charge of the office of Pradhan. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surendra Singh. learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Learned standing counsel was also heard on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ( 5 ) ON behalf of respondent No. 4, it was urged that Smt. Nathiya Devi being the Pradhan of the village had a right to vote in the meeting convened for consideration of the no-confidence motion against her but she was denied the opportunity of voting against the motion. It was urged that if the presence of Smt. Nathiya Devi at the time of meeting is also taken into account, in that event, there were 12 members present in the meeting and since only 7 votes were cast in favour of the motion, it miserably failed as the majority of two thirds of the members present and voting could not be achieved. ( 6 ) NOW the law on the point is well-settled. ( 6 ) NOW the law on the point is well-settled. A Pradhan is a member of the Gram Panchayat and in the absence of any express or implied provision taking away the right of the Pradhan as a member of the Gram Panchayat to cast his/her vote in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, pradhan would have a right to cast his/her vote. This finding flows from the provisions of section 12 (6) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Jn this connection, a reference may be made to a recent decision of this Court in Smt. Meera Devi v. State of U. P. and others. 1996 (2) UPLBEC 922 and Udai Vir Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1998 (2) UPLBEC 926 . In view of the well-settled law on the point, convenor of the meeting was not Justified in balking the respondent No. 4 of her right to cast vote in the meeting which was held to consider the no-confidence motion. For purpose of the present writ petition, this aspect of the matter is merely academic. Even if the vote of the Pradhan. Le. , respondent No. 4 is not taken into consideration, it would be apparent that the motion of no-confidence had not been passed by a majority of two thirds of the members present and voting. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner emphatically and painstakingly maintained that a no-confidence motion shall be treated to have been passed as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and Rule 33b fuifil of the Rules framed under the Act as well as the decision of the division Bench of this Court in Shambhoo Singh v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, 1984 All CJ 540, as also the decision rendered in Civil Misc. Writ No. 11179 of 1998. decided on 16. 4. 1998. Learned counsel appears to be of the view that since out of 11 members. 7 have voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence, it shall be treated to have been passed by absolute majority and consequently, the no-confidence motion had been legally carried out against the respondent No. 4. ( 8 ) I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter and find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7 have voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence, it shall be treated to have been passed by absolute majority and consequently, the no-confidence motion had been legally carried out against the respondent No. 4. ( 8 ) I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter and find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The submission made by him !s clearly against and in opposition to the provisions made in Section 14 of the Act and Rule 33b (viii) of the Rules, which require at least two thirds of the total number of members present and voting for purpose of carrying out motion of no-confidence. If the number of votes cast in the meeting is less than two third of the members, present and voting, the no-confidence motion has. of necessity, to fail. This clear, unambiguous and explicit law does not admit of any doubt. A passing reference was also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a decision of the Lucknow Bench of this court in Ram Bhajan v. State of V. P. and others. 1997 (2) AWC 1269. on the basis of which it was urged that in that case the motion of no-confidence was held to have been carried out even though out of 11 members, only 7 have voted in favour of the motion. On a close reading of the said decision, it would be apparent that out of 11 votes, one was declared invalid and the invalid vote was excluded from consideration. Out of 10 members present and voting, 7 had voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence and since two thirds of the ten members, present and voting, comes to 6. 66, it was rounded up to 7 and it was in these circumstances that the vote of no-confidence was held to have been validly carried out. This decision, therefore, is hardly of any help to the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE matter came to be considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Beti v. District panchayat Raj Officer and others, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 192 (SC ). This decision, therefore, is hardly of any help to the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE matter came to be considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Beti v. District panchayat Raj Officer and others, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 192 (SC ). The constitutional validity of section 14 of the Act was upheld and it was observed that the said provision takes into consideration the prevailing social environment and with a view to safeguard against any arbitrary exercise of power of removal, it is necessary that the motion must be passed by majority of two third of the members present and voting. These observations of the Apex Court clearly negate the submission that a vote of no-confidence may be passed by an absolute majority and that two thirds of the majority, is required for purpose of determining the quorum to convene a meeting. In Meera Devi v. Udai Vir Singhs case (supra), it has been laid down that for ensuring that a motion of no-confidence gets through, it is necessary that it must be passed by a majority of two third of the members present and voting. The decisions, referred to, by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable on all fours to the controversy in hand and in any case, they are contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Bells case (supra ). Two third of 11 members present and voting comes to 7. 33. The principle of rounding off a figure has been accepted in Meera Devis case, taking inspiration from the earlier Full Bench decision of this court In Wahid Ullah Khan v. District Magistrate, Nainital and others, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1107 (FB ). Applying the principle of rounding off, there must be 8 votes out of 11 to make the motion of no-confidence successful. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the respondent No. 4--Srnt. Nathiya Devi, an elected Pradhan was not allowed to cast her vote though under the law she was legally entitled to do so. If her vote was taken into consideration, which in all probability she must have cast in her favour, the result would have been that 7 votes were cast In favour of motion of no-confidence and 5 against It. If her vote was taken into consideration, which in all probability she must have cast in her favour, the result would have been that 7 votes were cast In favour of motion of no-confidence and 5 against It. Obviously on the basis of these figures, the no-confidence motion failed as two third of the majority of the members, present and voting, was not secured. Even if the vote of Smt. Nathiya devi-respondent No. 4 is excluded from being taken into consideration, then also the result remains (he same. Out of 11 members, there should be 8 members to make up the majority of two thirds of the members present and voting. Only 7 votes were cast in favour of no-confidence motion out of 11 members present and voting. Thus, the no-confidence motion against the respondent No. 4-Smt. Nathiya Devi failed. The D. P. R. O. has rightly declared that the motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4 had not been carried out. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion, the petitioner Is not entitled to any one of the reliefs claimed by him. There is no merit in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is accordingly dismissed. The respondent No. 4-Smt. Nathiya Devi shall be treated to have continued as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Bhurchuni. P. O. Narsinghpur Kabraha, Block dhata, district Fatehpur throughout and she shall be put in office immediately unmindful of the illegal and unjustified order dated 12,1. 1998 passed by Mahendra Singh, D. P. R. O.--respondent no. 1.