Tarun Agarwala, J.:— The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhamrola, District Udham Singh Nagar on 29th September, 2008. On 21st October, 2010, an appli cation was filed under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinaf ter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 33-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for initiating a no confidence motion against the petitioner. On this application, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, by an order dated 23rd October, 2010, fixed 29th October, 2010 for verification of the sig natures of the members of the Gram Sabha. On 25th October, 2010, it was found that one of the affidavits, which ac companied the notice, was defective and accordingly, the District Panchayat Raj Officer returned the notice filed under Sec tion 14 of the Act. 2. A fresh application was filed on 2nd November, 2010. This application was ac companied by the affidavits of five mem bers of the Gram Sabha certifying the sig natures of 1248 members out of 1830 members of the Gram Sabha. On this ap plication, the District Panchayat Raj Of ficer, by an order dated 4th November, 2010, fixed 11th November, 2010 for veri fication of the signatures of the members. This date was, subsequently, postponed till 12th November, 2010. Due publication and announcement by loudspeaker was made with regard to the verification of the signatures of the members. 3. On the date fixed, i.e., on 12th No vember, 2010, 40 members of the Gram Sabha appeared and verified their signa tures. 4 persons came forward and denied their signatures. It transpires that the peti tioner filed an objection indicating that the notice contains 79 forged signatures. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, after con sidering the objection, held that even if 79 signatures are removed from the list, none theless, the notice of no confidence mo tion has been moved by more one-half of the total members of the Gram Sabha. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, accordingly, by its order dated 12th November. 2010, fixed 29th November, 2010 for considera tion of the no confidence motion. On the said date, i.e., on 29th November, 2010, the motion was carried out after due dis cussion and out of 720 members who were present.
The District Panchayat Raj Officer, accordingly, by its order dated 12th November. 2010, fixed 29th November, 2010 for considera tion of the no confidence motion. On the said date, i.e., on 29th November, 2010, the motion was carried out after due dis cussion and out of 720 members who were present. 683 valid voters were certified, out of which 541 members voted in favour of no confidence motion and 108 members voted against the motion. Since the mo tion was carried out by more than two-third of the members present and voting and the quorum being complete, the Dis trict Panchayat Raj Officer issued an or der allowing the no confidence motion. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his removal from the post of Pradhan, has filed the present writ petition questioning the no confidence motion dated 29th November, 2010 as well as the order dated 7th De cember, 2010 and 8th December, 2010, by which the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge. 4. Heard Sri C.D. Bahuguna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for respond ent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Kishore Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6. 5. A number of grounds have been raised in the writ petition, but, the point, which has been argued by the learned coun sel for the petitioner, is capsulated hereunder. It was contended that under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 33-B of the Rules, it was mandatory for the District Panchayat Raj Officer to be satisfied about the genuineness of the signatures appended to the notice of no confidence motion and since the District Panchayat Raj Officer had not recorded his satisfaction nor any proper verification was done by him, the entire proceedings stood vitiated and conse quently, the order dated 29.11.2010, by which the motion was carried out, should be set aside. The learned counsel submit ted that the order dated 12.11.2010 fixing 29.11.2010 for consideration of the no confidence motion did not indicate the subjective satisfaction by the authority con cerned with regard to the genuineness of the signatures of the members of the Gram Sabha inasmuch on the date fixed for the verification of the signatures, only 40 sig natures out of 1248 signatures were veri fied which was wholly insufficient.
It was further contended that under Rule 33-B (5)(iii)(b), the prescribed authority was re quired to satisfy himself about the identity of the voters before handing over the bal lot paper and as per the record, only 43 signatures were verified from the voters list, which clearly indicates that genuine voters had not cast their votes and that outsiders had cast the votes. In support of his sub mission, the learned counsel for the peti tioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Bhagwan Devi vs. State of U.P. and oth ers, 1999 (90) R.D. 480. 6. In order to appreciate the submis sion of the learned counsel for the peti tioner, one has to see the provision of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder with regard to the provision relating to the re moval of the Pradhan. Rule 33-B under went a lot of changes from time to time. As far back in the year 1966, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad and another, 1966A.LJ., L.B. 613 held:- "That most that can be said is that the matter is in the discretion of the prescribed authority, if a complaint is made to it that material number of signatures is invalid, it may, in its dis cretion, make enquiry or refuse to make it." 7. Justice Sharma, who gave a sepa rate order, also held that the enquiry to be conducted by the authority should be a summary enquiry and whatever enquiry was required to be made was at the dis cretion of the authority and that nobody had a right to compel the authority to make an enquiry. 8. Similarly, in Daya Shanker vs. Dis trict Panchayat Raj Officer and others, 1965 ALJ 753, the Court held that the pre scribed authority was not obliged by law to make an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures appended to the notice. The court held:- "The Prescribed Authority was not obliged by law to make an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the sig natures appended to the notice. The enquiry directed to be conducted in the instant case was informal for the per sonal satisfaction of the Prescribed Au thority for which the Pradhan or other members of the Gaon Sabha have no concern or interest." 9.
The enquiry directed to be conducted in the instant case was informal for the per sonal satisfaction of the Prescribed Au thority for which the Pradhan or other members of the Gaon Sabha have no concern or interest." 9. In Banshoo vs. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur and another, 1986 UPLBEC 429, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that it was purely a discretion of the prescribed au thority to hold or not to hold the enquiry and even if such an enquiry was to be made, it should not be a long term en quiry so as to render the provision nuga tory. The court held:- "10. We are therefore, of the opinion that it was under the discretion of the Prescribed Authority to hold or not to hold the enquiry and if it has to be made it should not be a long drawn enquiry so as to take it beyond the statutory period of thirty days as re quired by Rule 33-B. The enquiry has to be informal one." 10. Similar view was reiterated by an other Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Devi Singh us. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, 1987 UPLBEC 745, 11. The aforesaid decisions were made on the ground that there was no provision under Section 14 read with Rule 33-B of the Rules with regard to the verification of the signatures of the members of the Gram Sabha nor was there any provision relat ing to the satisfaction of the authority to be recorded. 12. Subsequently, the provision un derwent an amendment in the year 1994 by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994 and it became obligatory upon the authority to record its subjective satisfaction. The said provision was considered and it was held that the satisfaction has to be prima facie and noth ing beyond that was required to be consid ered, as held in Smt. Premwati us. State of U.P., 1997 (88) RD 482 and again in Smt. Kalawati Deui vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (94) RD 432. 13. Section 14 and Rule 33-B as ex isting as on date, which are applicable to the present case, is quoted hereunder:- "14.
State of U.P., 1997 (88) RD 482 and again in Smt. Kalawati Deui vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (94) RD 432. 13. Section 14 and Rule 33-B as ex isting as on date, which are applicable to the present case, is quoted hereunder:- "14. Removal of Pradhan.- (1) The Gram Sabha may at a meeting spe cially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days previous notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Gram Sabha present and voting. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything con tained in Section 11. one-third of the members of the Gram Sabha shall form the quorum for a meet ing under sub-section (1). (2) A meeting for the removal of a Pradhan shall not be convened within [two years] of his election. (3) If the motion is not taken up for want of quorum or fails for lack of requisite majority at the meet ing no subsequent meeting for the removal of the same Pradhan shall be convened within two years of the date of the previous meeting. (4) Subject to the provisions of this section, the procedure for the re moval of a Pradhan, including that to be followed at such meet ing, shall be such as may be pre scribed." Rule 33-B of the Rules was amended by U.P. Panchayat Raj (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2005 with effect from 4th March, 2005. However, the same has not been adopted by the State of Uttarakhand as per the statement given by the Standing Counsel. Consequently, Rule 33-B, as ex isting prior to the 16th Amend ment Rules, 2005, is quoted here-under: "33-B. Procedure for removal of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan.- (1) A written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan un der Section 14 of the Act shall be necessary. It shall be signed by not less than one-half of the total num bers of member of the Gram Panchayat and shall state the rea sons for moving the motion and it shall be delivered in person by at least three members signing the notice to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. Before proceeding further on the notice, the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall sat isfy himself regarding genuineness of signatures of the members as signing the notice.
Before proceeding further on the notice, the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall sat isfy himself regarding genuineness of signatures of the members as signing the notice. (2) The District Panchayat Raj Of ficer shall convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, under Sec tion 14 of the Act, on a date to be fixed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The meeting so convened, shall be presided over by the District Panchayat Raj Officer or the per son authorised by him in writing in this behalf. The Presiding Of ficer may take such clerical assist ance for conducting the proceed ings of the meetings for the con sideration of the motion as he may deem necessary. (3) The Presiding Officer shall read to Gram Panchayat, the notice received by him. He shall then allow the motion to be moved and discussed. Such discussion shall terminate on the expiry of two hours appointed for the com mencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier. Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of two hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to vote. Vot ing shall be by secret ballot. (4) The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merit of the motion, nor shall he be entitled to vote thereon. [(5) (i) (a) The ballot paper to be used at the voting shall be in such form as may be specified by the State Election Commission. The ballot paper may be handwritten, type written, cyclostyled; printed or Photostat or type-written or hand written. (b) The ballot box to be used at the voting shall be of any of the types of boxes approved by the State Election Commission (ii) (a) The Presiding Officer shall, immediately before the com mencement of the voting, allow inspection of the ballot box to the members of the Gram Panchayat who may be present in the meet ing. (b) The Presiding Officer shall then secure and seal the box in such manner that the slit for insertion of ballot papers remains open. (iii) (a) The Presiding Officer shall be supplied by the District Panchayat Raj Office, a list of elected members and the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat con cerned.
(b) The Presiding Officer shall then secure and seal the box in such manner that the slit for insertion of ballot papers remains open. (iii) (a) The Presiding Officer shall be supplied by the District Panchayat Raj Office, a list of elected members and the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat con cerned. (b) Before delivering the ballot pa per to a person entitled to vote, the Presiding Officer shall satisfy himself about his identity and for that purpose he may take the as sistance of such persons as he may think fit. (c) If the Presiding Officer is not satisfied about the identity of any person, he may refuse to deliver a ballot paper to him after record ing a brief not about the circum stances justifying such refusal. (iv) If any member after obtain ing a ballot paper for the purpose of recording his vote decides not to use the same, he shall return the ballot paper to the Presiding Officer who shall mark it 're turned and cancelled' and keep it in an envelope. (v) The Polling compartment to be provided at the place of poll ing will be screened from obser vation. The member shall enter the same and if he wishes to vote for the rubber the removal, he shall make a mark X on the bal lot paper with the motion the stamp supplied by the Presiding Officer and if he wishes to vote against the motion he shall make no mark on the ballot paper. He shall then fold the ballot paper and put it into the ballot box through the slit provided for the purpose. The ballot box shall be kept in view of the Presiding Officer. (vi) If owing to physical incapac ity a person is unable to make a mark on the ballot paper, the Pre siding Officer shall, on being so requested by the person concerned record the vote on the ballot pa per according to his direction. The person concerned shall then him self or with the assistance of the Presiding Officer fold it so as to conceal the vote and insert it in the ballot box. The Presiding Of ficer shall have this done with as such secrecy as is feasible and shall keep a brief record of each instance without indicating whether the vote has been cast in favour of the motion or against it.
The Presiding Of ficer shall have this done with as such secrecy as is feasible and shall keep a brief record of each instance without indicating whether the vote has been cast in favour of the motion or against it. (vii) As soon as the poll is closed, the Presiding Officer shall proceed to count in the following manners the votes cast in favour of or against the motion in the presence of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan concerned and the members pre senting the notice who may be present on the spot: (a) the Presiding Officers shall open the ballot box and take out therefrom the ballot papers and examine them; (b) the Presiding Officer shall re ject a ballot paper, if it bears any mark or writing by which the voter can be identified, or if it is a spu rious ballot paper, or it has been so damaged or mutilated that its identity as genuine ballot paper cannot be established; (c) The Presiding Officer shall as certain the number of valid votes cast in favour of and against the motion. (viii) The Presiding Officer shall then declare the result of the vot ing. The motion shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. If the Presiding Officer declares the motion as earned, the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, as the case may be, shall cease to func tion forthwith. (ix) If the Presiding Officer appre hends breach of peace in count ing of votes, he shall seal up the slit of the ballot box and also al low the Pradhan or the Up-Pradhan concerned and the mem bers presenting the notice who may be present, to seal the same. The Presiding Officer shall an nounce the date, time and place for the counting of votes and shall forthwith inform the prescribed authority. He shall also make necessary arrangement for the safe custody of the ballot box]. (6) (a) After the counting of all ballot papers contained in the ballot box has been completed, the Presid ing Officer shall cause all such ballot papers to be kept in a sepa rate packet on which shall be in dicated such particulars as will identify the name of Gram Panchayat to which the ballot paper relate.
(6) (a) After the counting of all ballot papers contained in the ballot box has been completed, the Presid ing Officer shall cause all such ballot papers to be kept in a sepa rate packet on which shall be in dicated such particulars as will identify the name of Gram Panchayat to which the ballot paper relate. (b) An account of the ballot pa pers found in the box shall be re corded in a statement. [(c) The proceedings of the meet ing shall be recorded by the Pre siding Officer, who shall, unless he is himself the District Panchayat Raj Officer also, for ward copy of the motion result of the voting thereon, marked copy of the list of the elected members and the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned and also other connected papers to the Dis trict Magistrate, Director Panchayat Raj, Uttar Pradesh and State Election Commission imme diately, after the declaration of the result of voting. (7) If the motion has been carried the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall fix a date on which charge shall be handed over in the pres ence of the official appointed in this behalf by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. (8) In the case of removal of the Pradhan, charge shall be handed over to the Up-Pradhan, and in the case of removal of the Up-Pradhan charge shall be handed over to the Pradhan, if the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan fails to hand over charge, the transfer of charge shall be effected through the police." 15. In Smt. Kalawati Devi us. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (94) RD 432, it was held that the words "Gram Panchayat" used in Rule 33-B has to be read as "Gram Sabha" in order to bring life to the amended Section 14 of the Act. 16. In the light of the aforesaid, the notice of intention to move a motion for the removal of the Pradhan under Section 14 has to be delivered by five persons sign ing the notice. These five members are re quired to give their affidavits indicating that they are certifying the signatures of other members of the Gram Sabha who had appended their signatures. The District Panchayat Raj Officer shall satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice. 17. In Surya Prakash Dwiuedi us.
These five members are re quired to give their affidavits indicating that they are certifying the signatures of other members of the Gram Sabha who had appended their signatures. The District Panchayat Raj Officer shall satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice. 17. In Surya Prakash Dwiuedi us. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) AWC 1142 , a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the provision does not require the enquiry officer to summon each and every signatory or to knock on their door or even to ask them to assemble and to verify the signatures. Only a prima facie satisfaction is required to be recorded. The court held:- "8. After the amendment of the Rules with effect from 4.3.2005, the deliv ery of the notice by five members sign ing the notice, certifying the signatures of other members signing the notice is prima facie sufficient to satisfy the District Panchayat Raj Officer regard ing genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice. He may hold an enquiry, the manner of which is not prescribed, to satisfy himself, with regard to the genuineness and number of signatures on the notice. He may also refuse to make an en quiry in this regard. The enquiry, how ever, should not be so elaborate so as to defeat the very object of the notice. The law does not require the enquiry officer to summon each and every sig natory or to knock on their door or even to ask them to assemble and to verify the signatures/thumb impres sions. The enquiry should not be de layed or deferred giving an opportu nity to the elected Pradhan to either withhold the members from attending the proceedings or to manipulate to defeat the motion. The enquiry also should not be extended so that the members are not provided with 15 clear days to consider the motion.'' 18. Similarly, in Abdul Sattar vs. The Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, 1998 (Suppl.) RD 245, the court held that the satisfac tion to be recorded is only prima fade about the genuineness of the demand and nothing beyond that has to be enquired. The court held:- "12.
Similarly, in Abdul Sattar vs. The Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, 1998 (Suppl.) RD 245, the court held that the satisfac tion to be recorded is only prima fade about the genuineness of the demand and nothing beyond that has to be enquired. The court held:- "12. The notice contemplated under the provisions of Section 14 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 33-B of the Rules framed thereunder it seems to me means and refers to the pro posal or intention of the members of the Gram Panchayat for the removal of the Pradhan and it does not mean anything more. The notice referred to here-in-above as contemplated under Rule 33-B is required to be signed at least by half of the members of the Gram Panchayat and there is a genu ine demand of a considerable mem bers of the Gram Panchayat for the removal of the Pradhan so that the convening of the meeting may not be futile. The signing of this notice is merely a precautionary measure for preventing waste of time and energy. It further seems to me that the satis faction referred to in Rule 33-B of the rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act is prima facie satisfaction of the concerned authority about the genu ineness of the demand. If the motion is carried out it would be anomalous to crush the proceedings of the meet ing and the resolution passed for the removal simply on the ground that the motion was not signed by at least half of the members as the very fact that it is carried out indicates and has to be taken as confirming that there was in fact intention in the minds of at least half of the members of the Gram Panchayat to remove the Pradhan." The Court further held:- "13..................The sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be questioned. The legitimacy of the in ference drawn from such material is, however, certainly open for judicial review.
The legitimacy of the in ference drawn from such material is, however, certainly open for judicial review. But where the satisfaction is only a prima facie satisfaction contem plated only as precautionary measure and is not envisaged to jeopardize or effect any vested right of an office bearer even of an elective office, in the sense that the ultimate dependent on the "Will" of the majority of 2/3rd members of the elected representative in a meeting specially convened for consideration of not only the genuine ness of the intention indicated in the notice but also the reasons mentioned there in support of such an intention, there can be no justifiable ground for interfering in the exercise of the prima facie satisfactions in the present pro ceeding of an extraordinary nature. I must, however, hasten to add that whenever a statutory provision requires arriving at a satisfaction before passing an order which directly affects an individual to his detriment depriving him of the benefits of a vested right in such a case the legitimacy of the in terference drawn from the materials produced before the concerned author ity is certainly open for judicial review in the proceedings of the present na ture but not otherwise." 20. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the notice contemplated under the provision of Section 14 read with Rule 33-B of the Rules refers to the pro posal or intention of the members of the Gram Sabha for the removal of the Pradhan and it does not mean anything more. The notice is only a precautionary measure for preventing waste of time and energy. The satisfaction to be recorded by the authority about the genuineness of the demand is only a prima facie satisfaction. Five members are required to give an affi davit certifying the genuineness of other members. These affidavits are very relevant and has been deliberately included in the Rules to reduce the time to verify each and every signature. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, in the first instance, is only required to verify the signatures of these five per sons who have delivered the notice of motion. Once he is satisfied that these five persons have actually appended their sig natures on the affidavits and are certifying the signatures of other members of the Gram Sabha, then nothing further is re quired to be done.
Once he is satisfied that these five persons have actually appended their sig natures on the affidavits and are certifying the signatures of other members of the Gram Sabha, then nothing further is re quired to be done. No further enquiry is required to be done to verify the signatures of other members of the Gram Sabha. As held in Surya Prakash Dwivedi's case (supra), the law does not require the en quiry officer to summon each and every signatory for the purpose of verification of their signatures. 21. Having said this, the District Panchayat Raj Officer in the present case fixed a date for verification of the signa tures of the members of the Gram Sabha. 44 persons came forward and verified their signatures and thereafter, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, after considering the objection of the petitioner, concluded that even if the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was accepted and those names are excluded, more than half of the members of the Gram Sabha had appended their signatures and conse quently, was satisfied about the genuine ness of the notice and fixed 29th Novem ber, 2010 for consideration of no confi dence motion. 22. The contention that each and every signature of the members of the Gram Sabha was required to be verified is pat ently erroneous. As has been stated afore said, all that the District Panchayat Raj Officer was required to do was to ensure that the signatures of the five members are genuine and to record his subjective satis faction to that effect. In the present case, the District Panchayat Raj Officer fixed a date for the verification of the genuineness of the signatures of other members. The fact that many members did not come for ward does not mean that their signatures were forged. It only means that they had no grievance with the signatures which they had appended to the notice and had notning further to say. If they had a grievance, they would have come forward and denied their signatures, but by not coming forward on the date fixed does not mean that their signatures were forged. 23. In the light of the aforesaid, the submission that the District Panchayat Raj Officer had not recorded his satisfaction on the genuineness of the signatures is patently erroneous. The contention that no proper verification was done is also pat ently erroneous.
23. In the light of the aforesaid, the submission that the District Panchayat Raj Officer had not recorded his satisfaction on the genuineness of the signatures is patently erroneous. The contention that no proper verification was done is also pat ently erroneous. The Court has perused the record which the Standing Counsel has placed before the Court, and finds that the District Panchayat Raj Officer was not only satisfied with the signatures of the five per sons who delivered the notice of motion against the Pradhan but also recorded sat isfaction about the genuineness of the notice. 24. The contention that the Presiding Officer before delivering the ballot papers did not satisfy himself about his identity and consequently, the provision of Rule 33-B (5)(iii)(b) of the Rules was violated, is patently erroneous. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the verification being done while distributing the ballot papers contending that only 43 ballot papers were issued on the basis of their names being found in the voters list and thereafter, there has been no indication of the correspond ing number in the voters list. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision in Bhagwan Devi's case (supra). In my opin ion, the said judgment is not helpful and cannot be considered at this stage. The Court finds from the record that no such objection about the genuineness of the voters was raised by the petitioner or by any member of the Gram Sabha on the date when the motion was being discussed or when the motion was being put to vote. In the absence of any complaint being made, the Court cannot consider this as pect about the subjective satisfaction of the Presiding Officer at the time of the delivery of the ballot papers to the voter. 25. It may be stated here that even though many grounds have been taken in the writ petition, but the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been specifically stated with preci sion in the writ petition. It was, therefore, not obligatory on the part of the Court to consider and decide such submissions so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but, nonetheless, in the interest of justice, the Court has dealt with it. 26.
It was, therefore, not obligatory on the part of the Court to consider and decide such submissions so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but, nonetheless, in the interest of justice, the Court has dealt with it. 26. The interest of the Gram Sabha is paramount vis-a-vis the interest of the individual, namely, the Gram Pradhan. The Court finds that arguments were raised upon the validity of the notice, but there is no prayer for the quashing of the notice or the order, by which the District Panchayat Raj Officer had fixed a date for considera tion of no confidence motion. In spite of a specific prayer having not been made, the Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and finds that the submission is not tenable in the eyes of law. The Court is further of the opinion that once the motion has been carried out, it became anomalous to quash the proceedings of the motion and the resolution passed by it on the sole ground that the motion was not signed by at least half of the members of the Gram Sabha or the fact that the signatures ap pended to the notice were not verified. The Court finds that two-third members of the Gram Sabha in a meeting specially con vened for the purpose had carried out the motion. Such will of the majority of the members of the Gram Sabha should not be interfered nor there is any justifiable grounds to interfere in the writ proceedings. 27. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The in terim order, if any, is vacated. In the cir cumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. _____________