Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the decision of the result of no confidence motion dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure-5) so far as it relates to the petitioner-Pramukh only by which the no confidence motion brought against the respondent-Pramukh has been declared to have been defeated. 3. The admitted position is that there are a total of 20 directly elected members in Daisingsarai Panchayat Samiti. After the secret ballot was taken, it was found that 10 votes had been cast in favour of the Pramukh, that is, against the no confidence motion, and 9 votes against the Pramukh that is in favour of the no confidence motionand one vote was found invalid. For the said reason no confidence motion was held to have been defeated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that one vote declared invalid was wrongly rejected since two separate marking of tick and cross had been provided for separate boxes in the ballot paper for and against the no confidence motion, which has created a confusion as in such circumstances only a single marking should have been provided and such marking in the relevant box would have clearly indicated as to whether the member had voted in favour of or against the no confidence motion. This Court is prima facie of the view that there was no occasion for keeping two separate markings when separate boxes have been provided in the ballot paper for voting in favour of or against the no confidence motion; the provision of double marking can only create confusion among the members who cast their vote during the no confidence motion, and it is expected that the authorities shall not go for such practice particularly when the same is nowhere provided in the Act and Rules. 5. However the same cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner because even if the said vote is treated to have been cast in favour of the no confidence motion still only 10 out of total 20 directly elected member of the Panchayat Samiti had expressed themselves in favour of the no confidence motion. 6. 5. However the same cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner because even if the said vote is treated to have been cast in favour of the no confidence motion still only 10 out of total 20 directly elected member of the Panchayat Samiti had expressed themselves in favour of the no confidence motion. 6. Under Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 a resolution expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh/ Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti has to be passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. Since there were 20 directly elected members in the Panchayat Samiti, for the no confidence motion to be passed, it was essential that at least 11 such directly elected members should have expressed themselves in favour of the no confidence motion. 7. It is also sought to be argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the said confusion regarding marking had not been made, then the vote in favour of no confidence motion would have been equal to the vote against and thus the Presiding Officer would have had a casting vote in the matter. 8. In my opinion in view of the clear provision of Section 44(3)(i) of the Act there can be no occasion for exercise of casting vote so far as the motion for no confidence is concerned, since the same has to be passed by a majority of the total directly elected members irrespective of the number of members who have voted against the motion or abstained from voting. Further in the special procedure prescribed for no confidence motion by the Act, there is no mention of casting vote being exercised by the Presiding Officer. 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.