JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi & Vivek Kumar Birla,JJ.: - Heard Sri Kesri Nath Tripathi learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the elected Chairman of Kshettra Panchayat Ramkola District Kushinagar. The argument of Sri Tripathi is that the notice of no confidence that has been moved is not in accordance with the prescribed procedure inasmuch as it has been categorically stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that only five persons have signed the notice whereas the requirement under law is that more than half of the Members should have moved the said notice. He contends that the document which has been filed alongwith the motion alleging 83 signatures out of a total of 96 members cannot be treated to be part of the notice, and admittedly if the notice itself has not been signed as per the requirement of law, then requisition of the meeting for the no confidence motion is invalid. 3. Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of Smt. Neeta Yadav who has filed an impleadment application contending that the first page of the notice could not have possibly accommodated the signatures of all 83 persons and in such a situation the members who have signed the additional sheets which has been appended alongwith the motion should be treated to be the signatories to the notice as well. 4. Sri Tripathi then contends that this may not be permissible in law inasmuch as the motion can be signed by even one person but so far as the notice is concerned the requirement of law is more than half. 5. From the documents which have been placed on record, it appears that the notice which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition is accompanied by the motion and the notice has five signatures whereas the additional sheets appended alongwith it is signed by 83 Members. The District Magistrate having perused the same has found the said notice to be valid. 6. In view of the submissions that have raised we are of the opinion that the 83 signatures which have been appended alongwith the set of documents and are contained in more than four pages was sufficient enough for the District Magistrate to have treated the same to be a valid notice. 7. No interference is called for. Rejected.