JUDGMENT By the Court.—Counter-affidavit filed today on behalf of contesting respondent is taken on record. It is not necessary to provide further time for filing of counter-affidavits to the State-respondents, in view of the admitted facts, as they exist on record. 2. Heard Sri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Vardhan, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Petitioner, before this Court, is a member of Kshetra Panchayat, Block Ghughali, District Maharajganj. Respondent No. 5 has been elected as Block Pramukh of the same Kshetra Panchayat. Total number of elected members of Kshetra Panchayat is 82. 4. Petitioner alongwith 48 other members of the Kshetra Panchayat submitted a notice for no confidence motion being moved against the Block Pramukh under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Khsetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1961”) on 3rd October, 2013. The District Magistrate permitted the statutory period prescribed for convening a meeting for motion of no confidence to lapse without taking any decision on the notice of no confidence. 5. Petitioner therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61520 of 2013. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 11th November, 2013 with liberty to file a proper petition. Therefore, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62372 of 2013. Ojbection was raised on behalf of Block Pramukh that the signatures of the members appended on the motion of no confidence were forged. Writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 14th November, 2013 requiring the District Magistrate to examine the matter and to pass a reasoned speaking order. 6. The District Magistrate, in compliance of the order of the High Court, has passed order dated 9th December, 2013 and has recorded following findings: 7. There are 82 elected members of Kshetra Panchayat. Notice of no confidence was presented with the signatures of 49 members. Signatures/thumb impressions were got verified through the In-charge District Magistrate. As against 82 members, 36 appeared and their signatures/thumb impression were verified. 19 persons, who had signed the motion, had submitted their affidavits in support of motion. As against these 19 affidavits supporting the motion, respondent No. 5 filed affidavits of these very 19 members stating therein that the earlier affidavit were wrong. 8. Notice was issued to the said 19 members to appear before the District Magistrate. 19 persons, who had signed the motion, had submitted their affidavits in support of motion. As against these 19 affidavits supporting the motion, respondent No. 5 filed affidavits of these very 19 members stating therein that the earlier affidavit were wrong. 8. Notice was issued to the said 19 members to appear before the District Magistrate. 17 were served, while notice on 2 could not be served. On the date and time fixed, 7 members appeared and stated that the affidavits filed in support of the notice of no confidence was correct and the affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 were forged affidavits. Yet the District Magistrate under the order dated 9th December, 2013 has held that since 10 members, who had filed their affidavits in support of motion of no confidence, did not appear and notice on 2 could not be served, motion can be said to be supported by 37 members only, when the minimum required is 41. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a manifest illegality in the order of the District Magistrate, inasmuch as merely because 10 members, who had given affidavits in support of motion, did not appear, it could not have been recorded by the District Magistrate that their affidavits were forged or they were not supporting the motion. Similarly it is stated that if service could be effected two person, it would not mean that their signatures to the motion were forged. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed today on behalf of contesting respondent No. 5, it has been stated that petitioners have failed to establish that the notice of no confidence is supported by 41 members and therefore, the order impugned is justified. It is further stated that since 19 members have submitted their affidavits in favour of respondent No. 5, motion of no confidence as presented by the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. 12. It may be recorded that under Section 15 (2) of Act, 1961, a written notice of intention to move a no confidence motion is to be presented in the manner prescribed signed by at least half of the total elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat. 12. It may be recorded that under Section 15 (2) of Act, 1961, a written notice of intention to move a no confidence motion is to be presented in the manner prescribed signed by at least half of the total elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat. In the facts of the case, there were 82 elected members. Motion had to be signed by 41 members. Motion submitted by the petitioner was signed by 49 members. The District Magistrate is obliged to convene a meeting after being satisfied that the signatures appended to the motion of no confidence are not forged or fabricated. Nothing further is required to be examined nor any enquiry as Civil Court, is contemplated under Section 15 (2) of Act, 1961. Such meeting is to be convened within 30 days of the date on which the notice has been given. 13. In the facts of the case it is not disputed that as against 49 members signing the notice, 36 appeared and their signatures/thumb impressions were actually verified on the motion of no confidence by the In-charge District Magistrate. These 19 members who filed their affidavits of the motion, were directed to appear before the District Magistrate. Notice could be served upon 17, out of these 19 members, as 2 members were stated to be at Delhi and Iraq respectively. Out of 17 members, who were served with notice, 7 did appear and stated that the earlier affidavits filed by them were genuine, while the affidavits filed by the Block Pramukh were forged. Since 10 members did not appear, despite notice and 2 members were not served, the District Magistrate has recorded a finding that these 12 persons are to be taken to have not signed the notice for motion of no confidence and therefore, it has been concluded that the notice has been signed by 37 members only, which is less than half required. On this ground, the District Magistrate has rejected the notice for motion for want of signatures of at least half of the members of the Kshetra Panchayat. 14. On this ground, the District Magistrate has rejected the notice for motion for want of signatures of at least half of the members of the Kshetra Panchayat. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified in contending that merely because members who had signed on notice for motion of no confidence (12 in number) did not appear, it cannot be recorded that the signatures and thumb impressions appended on the notice were forged, at least no finding in that regard has been recorded by the District Magistrate. Mere non-appearance will not make the signatures on the notice of motion of no confidence as fabricated, not can it be held that the motion is not supported by more than half of the members of the Kshetra Panchayat. 15. There cannot be a presumption about the signatures being forged or not being that of the members. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct. Under the Act, 1961 and the Rules prescribed, there is no requirement of any actual physical presence of the members before the District Magistrate in support of the motion. What is only required is that the motion should be signed by more than half of the members, and if there are affidavits on record in support of the motion and further if there are affidavits to the contrary submitted by the Block Pramukh, it is the duty of the District Magistrate to satisfy himself from the records of the Kshetra Panchayat as to whether prima facie the motion bears the signatures of members or not. He is not required to act as the Civil Court and enter into the necessities of evidence for coming to the conclusion that the signatures on the motion are genuine or not. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order impugned dated 9th December, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate is patently illegal and cannot be legally sustained. It is hereby quashed. 17. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order impugned dated 9th December, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate is patently illegal and cannot be legally sustained. It is hereby quashed. 17. However, since the statutory period for convening the meeting has already expired and further since there was no interim stay order by any competent Court as contemplated by Explanation to Section 15 of Act, 1961, we have no other option but to direct that the petitioner may bring a fresh motion of no confidence with the signatures of requisite number of members of the Kshetra Panchayat before the District Magistrate within 10 days from today and if such motion is made, the District Magistrate shall act in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above as per the provisions of Section 15 (2) of Act, 1961 without unnecessary delay and in any case within two weeks of the receipt of the motion of no confidence alongwith a certified copy of this order. 18. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above. —————