ORDER Heard on admission. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of Annexure-P/1 passed by the Collector, District Janjgir- Champa whereby the petitioner's reference under Section 91 read with Section 21 (4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (for short `the Act') directed against no confidence motion passed against him on 29-12-2008 has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khondhar, Janpad Panchayat Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa. The Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat moved an application before respondent No.3 for tabling no confidence motion against the petitioner. Respondent No.3 appointed respondent No.1 as Presiding Officer and fixed the date for no confidence motion on 29-12-2008. Notices were issued to the members of the Gram Panchayat on 19-12-2008. Meeting for considering no confidence motion was held on 29-12-2008 and in the meeting, motion against the petitioner was carried out with a majority of 11 votes. 3. The petitioner impugned the passing of no confidence motion by way of reference under Section 21 (4) of the Act on the following grounds:- 1. He was not given sufficient opportunity to speak in the meeting. 2. Notices for meeting were issued to the members under Sections 28 and 35 of the Act and not under Section 21 of the Act. 3. One ballot paper did not bear the prescribed mark (v), despite the objection by the petitioner the same was not rejected and it was counted in favour of the motion. z If invalid vote would have been rejected, in that case, the requirement of 3/4th majority of present members is not satisfied and the motion fails. 4. Shri H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Rule 5 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice- President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for short `the Rules, 1994), the disputed vote could not be counted against the petitioner, as the mark present in the ballot did not correspond to the mark of (v) that is required to be affixed has not been affixed. 5. Referring to Rule 76 (1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for short `the Rules, 1995'), it was argued that the same was liable to be rejected. He also reiterated the other grounds that were raised by the petitioner in reference before the Collector. 6. 5. Referring to Rule 76 (1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for short `the Rules, 1995'), it was argued that the same was liable to be rejected. He also reiterated the other grounds that were raised by the petitioner in reference before the Collector. 6. Reliance is placed in the matter of Somwati (Smt.) Versus State of M.P. and others reported in 2007 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 128. 7. The Collector has rejected the contention of the petitioner that he was not afforded opportunity to speak in the meeting with an observation that from perusal of the resolution, it is evident that the petitioner spoke in the meeting and denied the allegations made against him. It has been further observed that though notices issued to the members mention Sections 28 and 35 of the Act, but the same would not vitiate the notice. In my opinion, the grounds taken by the petitioner in this regard has rightly been rejected by the Collector. 8. In the matter of Somwati (Smt.) (Supra), resolution of no confidence motion was challenged by the elected Sarpanch before the Collector. Accepting the arguments of Sarpanch, the Collector held that on one of the votes on which there were 2 marks, it was possible to identify the voter, as such the said vote has been held to be invalid. Excluding such vote, no confidence motion was not carried out by the majority as required under Section 21 of the Act. Referring to Rule 76(1)(a) of the Rules, 1995, it was held that by additional mark it was possible to identify the voter and, therefore, the Collector has rightly rejected the vote in question. 9. However, in the instant case, the Collector in the impugned order has observed that intention of the voter was to put (v) mark, however, there is slight difference in putting (v) mark and it cannot be treated as invalid vote. In paragraph-6 of the cited judgment, reference is made to the decision in the matter of Sharda Bai Khatik Versus State of M.P. and others {1998 (1) JLJ 399} wherein in the similar facts, (v) marks were put in different direction and it was held that intention of the voter was clear and the same cannot be invalidated. 10. In paragraph-6 of the cited judgment, reference is made to the decision in the matter of Sharda Bai Khatik Versus State of M.P. and others {1998 (1) JLJ 399} wherein in the similar facts, (v) marks were put in different direction and it was held that intention of the voter was clear and the same cannot be invalidated. 10. In the present matter also, no objection has been raised before the Collector or even before this Court by the petitioner that because of slight difference of (v) mark affixed in one vote the identity of the voter could be disclosed. The procedure to be followed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat held for consideration of no confidence motion is governed by the Rules, 1994. Affixture of symbol is to ascertain the intention of the voter. The intention of the voter in the present case is writ large and the same leads to one and the only conclusion that the voter wanted to vote in favour of no confidence motion as held by the Collector. 11. In the result, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.