JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The petitioner has challenged the notice No. 1025(14) dated 5.12.2009 under Annexure-3 issued by the learned Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (opp. party No. 3), fixing the date of holding the meeting of want of Confidence against the petitioner to 29.12.2009. 2. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Nimani Grama Panchayat in the year 2007. He was discharging his duty to the best of his ability. Surprisingly he received the aforesaid notice from the learned Sub-Collector, Nayagarh. As per the writ petition, the allegations made in the resolution proposed to be moved in the meeting of No Confidence Motion are all false and fabricated. Some of the signatures therein and in the requisition are not genuine. The learned Sub-Collector ought to have examined the genuineness of the allegations made against the petitioner and the genuineness of the signatures in the requisition and resolution, before issuing the notice under Annexure-3. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed to quash Annexure-3. 3. Opp. party nos. 2 and 4 in their joint counter contended that out of 16 ward members of Nimani Gram Panchayat, 9 ward members submitted requisition along with the proposed resolution before learned Sub-Collector, Nayagarh and requested him to convene a special meeting for holding of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. Learned Sub-Collector, Nayagarh, forwarded the requisition and the resolution to the Block Development Officer, Bhapur, to verify the genuineness of the signatures contained therein. Accordingly, the Block Development Officer, Bhapur verified the signatures and submitted his report vide his letter No. 1476 dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure-C/4) to opp. party No. 3. After being satisfied with the genuineness of the signatures, opp. party No. 3 issued the impugned notice under Annexure-3 to all the members including the petitioner of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. So they prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the report of the Block Development Officer under Annexure-C/ 4 since Santilata Pradhan, Binodini Behera and Sabita Das, three of the ward members signed in the resolution in English and in the Gram Panchayat meetings in Oriya, their signatures could not be compared. He further submitted that Santi Pradhan has given her signature in Oriya as Santi Pradhan, but in English as Santilata Pradhan. So, it appears that her signature has been forged. He further submitted that Santi Pradhan has given her signature in Oriya as Santi Pradhan, but in English as Santilata Pradhan. So, it appears that her signature has been forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthermore, submitted that before issuing the notice under Annexure-3, the Sub-Collector ought to have examined the genuineness of the allegations made against the petitioner. 5. As stated above, there are 16 ward members in Nimani Grama Panchayat. Even if it is presumed that Santilata Pradhan (Santi Pradhan), Binodini Behera and Sabita Das have not put their signatures in the requisition as well as resolution, still then, the remaining signatories being more than one third of the total members, as required u/s 24(2)(a) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, Annexure-3 cannot be said as illegal on that ground. The Sub-collector is not required under law to examine the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the requisition/resolution before convening a meeting of want of confidence. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed