P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the Sarpanch of Mahadevpali Grama Panchayat under Binka Police Station in the district of Sonepur. In this writ petition she has alleged that the process of no confidence motion proceeded illegally and contrary to the provision of law and therefore the same should be set aside. In that context petitioner invited our attention to the following order passed on 05. 08. 2004 in Misc. Case No. 7858 (in W. P. (C) No. 7883 of 2004): as an interim measure, it is directed that no confidence. motion scheduled to be held on 10th of August, 2004 may be allowed to be held, but the result thereof shall not be given effect to without leave of the Court. She argued that, with a view to achieve the purpose of no confidence motion against the petitioner, the Tahasildar, Binka, being the officer authorized by the Sub-Collector to conduct the no confidence proceeding, allowed no confidence motion to proceed but subsequently destroyed the ballots already cast and issued fresh ballots. She alleged that in the meantime Ward Members were influenced and pressurised to support the no confidence motion. Petitioner stated that in the said process opposite party No. 2 made access to the ballots on the basis of casting of votes by the Ward Members and that action of the Tahsildar was against the direction in the above quoted order of this Court. ( 2 ) COUNTER affidavit was filed by opposite party No. 1 to counter the allegation of malpractice and mischief. Similarly, counter affidavit has been filed by the intervenors who are some of the Ward Members of the said Panchayat denying to the aforesaid allegation. In the counter affidavit opposite party No. 1 has stated that: 9. It is pertinent to mention here that when all the 11 members out of 14 voted it was noticed that the ballot papers were not prepared correctly due to clerical mistake as the said papers were not prepared chronologically for which it was necessary to correct and fresh preparation of ballot papers which was made on the consent of all the members present in the said meeting including the petitioner, as would be evident from the proceeding dated 10. 8. 8. 04 which was signed by all the Ward Members including the petitioner and after preparation of the fresh ballot paper the No Confidence Motion was held and the members voted to which the petitioner objected. A copy of the proceeding dated 10. 8. 04 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/2. ( 3 ) ON our direction learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced for our perusal copy of the resolution book opened on 19. 08. 2004 and there is note of the special sitting on 10. 08. 2004 indicating that there was statement made by the Naib-Sarpanch in support of no confidence motion and thereafter 15 ballots were prepared out of which 11 were utilized, as 11 Ward Members cast their votes, 3 of the Ward Members and the Sarpanch declined to cast their votes. Therefore, the used and unused ballots were kept in sealed cover, but at 1. 00 p. m. Sarpanch filed an application stating that there was some irregularity in the ballot papers (on which votes were cast) and therefore, again ballot papers were prepared and vote was taken. Because of that, the first batch of ballots (which had been kept in sealed cover) were destroyed. The used 11 ballots were brought out from the ballot box, verified and found that all the ballots were in favour of the no confidence motion. There are four unused ballots that were kept in sealed cover. It is also in the resolution that the used and unused ballots in the sealed cover were sent to the High Court through the Office of the Collector. It is noted in the Resolution Book that, "proceeding is recorded by G. P. E. O. in absence of E. O.-cum-Secretary, G. P. as per my dictation. Sd- Tahsildar, Binka. 10. 8. 2004". The sealed envelops of the used and unused ballots produced before us are not opened for verification save and except opening the envelop containing the Resolution Book. We direct the Court Master to prepare Xerox copy of the Resolution Book under the supervision of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and with due attestation of each page. That Xerox copy be kept in a sealed cover and tagged to this record for future reference and the original Resolution Book be returned immediately to learned Add ). Govt. Advocate together with the sealed envelops of used and unused ballots. Learned Addl. Govt. That Xerox copy be kept in a sealed cover and tagged to this record for future reference and the original Resolution Book be returned immediately to learned Add ). Govt. Advocate together with the sealed envelops of used and unused ballots. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate may keep the said documents in safe custody so that the matter relating to contempt can be appropriately considered. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that his specific allegation of casting of vote twice on the self-same day with the further allegation of making persuasion to Ward Members after the first voting and before commencement of the second voting has not been specifically denied by the opposite party members and, therefore, that allegation alone is sufficient to set aside the result of the proceeding of the no confidence motion. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand argued that explanation in the manner mentioned in the counter affidavit and particularly in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, is sufficient to indicate that allegation of manipulation and mischief has been denied and, therefore, no adverse inference should be taken against the fairness in conducting the proceeding of ho confidence motion. At the same time, to the query of the Court, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is unable to explain and there is also nothing in the counter affidavit to indicate as to why the first set of ballots kept in a sealed cover were destroyed. If such ballots would have been preserved in sealed cover, then we could have verified the truthfulness or bona fide in the contention of either of the parties. When such documents have been destroyed by the opposite parties for no good or sensible reason, therefore, we draw adverse inference against the opposite party members. At this stage we may point out that we are not giving any opinion at this stage of the proceeding on the allegation of contempt of Court. It was stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that such an application has been filed. If that be so, that shall be considered in accordance with law and therefore none of our findings or observations should be such that it would amount to pre-judging that issue. It was stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that such an application has been filed. If that be so, that shall be considered in accordance with law and therefore none of our findings or observations should be such that it would amount to pre-judging that issue. ( 5 ) LOOKING to the bare facts, the documents available and the respective pleas advanced by each of the parties, we find that bona fide and fairness on the part of the opposite party No. 2- Tahsildar, Binka in conducting the election is not seen because of destruction of the earlier set of ballots for no good reason and, therefore, the second round of votes polled by him in the no confidence motion being illegal and contrary to the statutory provision in Section 24 of the Act, we quash the no confidence motion and the resolution thereof and allow the writ petition accordingly. ( 6 ) WE may state that the democratic process of continuance or discontinuance of an elected Sarpanch in accordance with Section 24 of the Act should be respected by everybody and a Court is no exception to that. What we have said is that, to achieve that object there cannot be a short cut or illegal method adopted. In other words, such object be achieved only in fair manner and by adopting the law scrupulously. Since we have quashed the aforesaid consequence of the 'no confidence motion', that does not preclude the Ward Members, if they are required to do so, to proceed with the no confidence motion afresh. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. .