JUDGMENT : 1. Arguments in this matter were completed on 16.4.2018. Thereafter we had required the learned Chief Standing Counsel to produce the original record along with sealed ballot box which have been produced today. 2. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra along with Sri Sharad Pathak and Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Anil Tiwari along with Sri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the intervenors who had filed an impleadment application. We have gone through the pleadings and also perused the original record. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notice dated 31.08.2017 issued by the Opp-party No.2, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No.1. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp. Parties not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner No9.1 as Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat-Gaura, District Pratapgrah pursuant to the impugned Notice 31.08.2017. (c) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner No.1. (d) To issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. The case set forth by petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was elected as Member of Kshetra Panchayat Gaura, District Pratapgarh from Damdam area in the election held in the year 2015 and thereafter he contested election of Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat Gaura, District Pratapgarh in which he was declared elected on 6.2.2016 and took oath of office of Pramukh on 18.3.2016. Petitioner no. 1 alleges that with the change of the ruling party in the State in March, 2017 his harassment started as he belongs to another political party. On account of such pressure tactics, certain members of the Kshetra Panchayat were pressurised to bring no confidence motion against petitioner No.1. Petitioners also allege that respondent No.4 who contested the election against father of petitioner No.1, who is an Ex- Cabinet Minister, wants to harass the petitioner No.1. On account of such pressure tactics, certain members of the Kshetra Panchayat were pressurised to bring no confidence motion against petitioner No.1. Petitioners also allege that respondent No.4 who contested the election against father of petitioner No.1, who is an Ex- Cabinet Minister, wants to harass the petitioner No.1. The harassment of petitioner No.1 along with other members of the Kshetra Panchayat was done by the respondent No.4 and few instances of the same have been given in paragraph 13 of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner No.1 contends that he received the impugned notice dated 31.8.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Collector, Pratapgarh by means of which he was informed of a meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat Gaura, District Pratapgarh having been called to consider the motion of no confidence brought against him in the capacity of being the Block Pramukh of the said Kshetra Panchayat fixing the date of meeting as 22.9.2017. The petitioners contend that the said notice is in violation of Section 15(3) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act). The petitioners further contend that after receiving the impugned notice dated 31.8.2017, all the petitioners, of which petitioners No.2 to 11 are the elected Members of the Kshetra Panchayat, became shocked and they contacted petitioner No.1 making complaint against the impugned action contending that neither petitioners No.2 to 11 nor other members have ever signed the alleged motion of no confidence. The petitioners contend that all of them have already given their affidavits to respondent No.2 on 31.8.2017 in this regard but the respondent No.2 without conducting any kind of inquiry has called the meeting under political pressure. The petitioners also contend that they have received the notice containing only one page i.e. impugned notice itself and a few members have not opened the envelopes till date in order to demonstrate that the envelopes do not contain the proposal of no confidence motion or the alleged notice of no confidence given by one of the signatories to the resolution. The petitioners also contend that out of 90 elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat Gaura more than half of the members namely 56 members have categorically denied moving of alleged no confidence motion and accordingly they contend that issue of impugned notice dated 31.08.2017 is patently illegal. 6. The petitioners also contend that out of 90 elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat Gaura more than half of the members namely 56 members have categorically denied moving of alleged no confidence motion and accordingly they contend that issue of impugned notice dated 31.08.2017 is patently illegal. 6. While challenging the impugned notice dated 31.8.2017, the petitioners contend that keeping in view the mandatory provisions of Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act, the written notice of intention to make the motion should have been signed by at least half of the total number of elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat and a copy of the proposed motion should have been delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshetra Panchayat. They contend that the notice of no confidence was not handed over in person to the Collector rather it was received by the Chief Revenue Officer who in turn put up the same before the District Magistrate upon which the Collector directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to submit a report. They also contend that though the notice of no confidence was given by 72 members out of 90 elected members of which one has died and though the notice was allegedly signed by more than 50% of the elected members, yet 56 members had given their affidavit on 31.8.2017 contending that no confidence was not signed by them and consequently keeping in view the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2015)2 UPLBEC 1176 it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have first held an inquiry prior to issue of the notice of meeting yet the respondent No.2 acted in haste and consequently the said notice merits to be quashed. It has also been contended that respondent No.4 in collusion with the then District Magistrate, who has been impleaded by name as respondent No.5, managed to have the impugned notice dated 31.8.2017 issued and consequently the notice is also bad on this score. 7. Upon filing of the writ petition, this Court passed the following interim order on 19.9.2017 which is reproduced below:- “Heard Dr. 7. Upon filing of the writ petition, this Court passed the following interim order on 19.9.2017 which is reproduced below:- “Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Counsel assisted by Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Three arguments have been raised on behalf of the petitioners: 1. That the notice issued under Section 15(3) of Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, by the District Magistrate, for convening the meeting of 'no confidence motion' was not accompanied by the motion of no confidence presented to him. 2. That on the very date on which the notice under Section 15(3) of the 1961 Act was issued, an application was given by the petitioners to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh accompanied by 56 original affidavits sworn by members of the Kshetra Panchayat stating that they had not signed any resolution for 'no confidence motion'. As such the District Magistrate was obliged to get the enquiry conducted to his satisfaction about the genuineness of the motion. 3. That the notice of no confidence motion as required under Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act was not presented in person to the Collector by any of the members, rather it was given to the Chief Revenue Officer and in support of the said submission reliance has been placed upon newspaper report filed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Sri Chauhan, referring to the original records submitted that the notice under Section 15(3) of the 1961 Act was not only served by speed post but also personally given to all the members and as such the allegation that the motion was not accompanying the notice is not correct. In so far as the presentation to the notice under Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act of the District Magistrate is concerned, Sri Chauhan referring to the original records, stated that it was presented to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate made an endorsement on the same to the D.P.R.O. on 29.08.2017. In so far as the other arguments relating to 56 affidavits being filed on 21st August, 2017 along with covering letter of the petitioners, he submits that record does not contain these affidavits as such there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to conduct any enquiry. In so far as the other arguments relating to 56 affidavits being filed on 21st August, 2017 along with covering letter of the petitioners, he submits that record does not contain these affidavits as such there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to conduct any enquiry. Although, Sri Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, upon instructions, has submitted that all the three arguments are without any merit, however, we feel that complete records may be placed before us along with an affidavit of the District Magistrate on the three points raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has impleaded Sri Sharad Kumar Singh, the then District Magistrate, Pratapgarh as respondent No.5. It has been informed that Sri Sharad Kumar Singh since has been transferred and at present Sri Shambhu Kumar is the present District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. We require that the then District Magistrate, respondent No.5 and present District Magistrate, both shall file their respective affidavits. Put up this case in the additional cause list on 5th October, 2017. In the meantime, meeting of no confidence motion scheduled for 22nd September, 2017 will be held as per schedule, however, its result shall not be declared.” 8. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court dated 19.9.2017, the meeting of no confidence was held on 22.9.2017. Thereafter the petitioners, while filing the rejoinder affidavit, have taken a new ground of argument while placing reliance on the U.P. Kshetra Samitis (Voting on Motions of Non-Confidence) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Rules) that the secrecy of ballot was not maintained inasmuch as each ballot paper along with counterfoil was numbered and consequently each member who would be voting, would be forced to make his signature upon the counterfoil of the ballot paper and thus it would be easy for the authorities to identify the member and check as to which member has given his vote whether for or against the motion and consequently, would be threatened in this regard. Thus, it is contended that as the secrecy of the ballot was not maintained, as such the respondents have acted in violation of the 1966 Rules and consequently the voting on the no confidence motion is vitiated on this ground also. 9. Dr. Thus, it is contended that as the secrecy of the ballot was not maintained, as such the respondents have acted in violation of the 1966 Rules and consequently the voting on the no confidence motion is vitiated on this ground also. 9. Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners has summed up his arguments as under:- (i) The notice of no confidence has to be given in person as per the provisions of Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act to the Collector and the same having been given to the Chief Revenue Officer, vitiates the impugned notice dated 31.8.2017. (ii) The copy of the no confidence motion was neither annexed with the impugned notice nor the notice of no confidence was given in Proforma-I as specified in the 1961 Act. The same being specifically provided under the provisions of Section 15 of the 1961 Act was mandatory and the said procedure not having been followed consequently the impugned notice is vitiated. (iii) 56 elected members had given their affidavits on 31.8.2017 stating that no confidence motion was not signed by them and consequently the Collector was under obligation to hold an inquiry in the matter prior to issue of impugned notice dated 31.8.2017. (iv) Malafide and pressure tactics exerted by the respondent No.4 in collusion with the then District Magistrate, both of whom have been impleaded by name, in pressurising the elected members in moving the said notice of intention to make the motion, vitiates the entire proceedings. (v) The secrecy of the ballot was not maintained during the voting as prescribed under the 1966 Rules, as such the proceedings of 22.09.2017 stood vitiated. 10. In support of the aforesaid grounds, Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) On the point of motion to be given to the Collector personally, reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Awadhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2017(5) ADJ 1 , Viresh Kumar Tiwari vs. Additional District Judge, Ballia and others reported in 2014(1) ADJ 486 as well as on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Anmol Singh vs. Ch. Atmaram and others reported in AIR 1954 SC 510 (ii) On the point of provisions of Section 15 of the 1961 Act being mandatory, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Babu Ram Upadhya reported in AIR 1961 SC 751 , Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel vs. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and others reported in (1975)2 SCC 482 , Usha Bharti vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2014)7 SCC 663 , Raviyashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and others reported in (2012)4 SCC 407 and Mohan Lal Tripathi vs. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly and others reported in (1992)4 SCC 80 . (iii) As regard the argument that the Collector was under obligation to hold an inquiry in the matter prior to issue of the impugned notice dated 31.8.2017 when 56 elected members had given the affidavits on 31.8.2017 that the no confidence motion was not signed by them, reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi (supra). (iv) On the point of malafides being alleged against the respondent No.4 and no counter affidavit having been filed denying the said malafides, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of P.N. Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1999(17) LCD 24. (v) On the point of there being secrecy of ballot and the voting having been vitiated on account of not following the 1966 Rules, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyacharan Shukla vs. Khubchand Baghel and others reported in AIR 1964 1099, S. Raghbir Singh Gill vs. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others reported in 1980 Supp. S.C.C. 53, People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another vs. Union of India and another reported in (2013)10 SCC 1 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati Devi vs. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Mirzapur and others reported in 1999(36) ALR 144. 11. During the course of argument Dr. S.C.C. 53, People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another vs. Union of India and another reported in (2013)10 SCC 1 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati Devi vs. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Mirzapur and others reported in 1999(36) ALR 144. 11. During the course of argument Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that once Section 15 of the 1961 Act prescribes a procedure for moving of notice of no confidence motion and the method by which the Collector is to deal with the same and the same having not been done in the said prescribed manner then the other modes are prohibited. Consequently, once the provisions of the 1961 Act have been violated, the entire action would get vitiated. In this regard reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmad vs. The King-Emperor reported in 1936 PC 372 as well as on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 , Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)3 SCC 92 and on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chhatrapal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2003(6) AWC 5653. 12. An impleadment application (C.M. Application No.106412 of 2017) has been filed on behalf of Ved Prakash Singh and 47 others by Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate. The said impleadment application states that all the persons seeking impleadment are supporting the no confidence motion submitted by them and have contended that they are necessary parties in the writ petition and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for not impleading them as respondents despite the fact that notice of no confidence motion was moved by them along with others. It has also been contended that petitioner No.4, 6, 7 and 11 have filed their affidavits, which have been annexed as Annexure-1 to the said impleadment application, stating that they have not filed the writ petition and consequently have contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is misuse of judicial process. Accordingly they have prayed for their impleadment. We have permitted Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate to argue the matter on behalf of the persons seeking impleadment as intervenor. 13. Accordingly they have prayed for their impleadment. We have permitted Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate to argue the matter on behalf of the persons seeking impleadment as intervenor. 13. Sri Tiwari, Advocate has argued that the writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed out rightly on the ground that firstly the writ petition is an abuse of judicial process as the petitioners have approached this Court with material concealment of facts and have tried to mislead the Court as already indicated above. Secondly, it has been contended, while placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Tewari vs. Asstt. District Panchayat Officer and another reported in 1967 R.D. 17, that the signatories of the notice of motion have to be impleaded as party in the writ petition and they having not been impleaded as a party, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Thirdly, it has been contended that the persons seeking impleadment are 48 in number which is more than half of 89 surviving elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat (1 elected member having died out of total of 90 members) which itself indicates that majority of the members are in favour of the no confidence motion. Sri Tiwari also argues that keeping in view the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi (supra), the Collector was not obliged to get a full fledged inquiry conducted into the matter pertaining to the alleged affidavits of 56 elected members having been given to the Collector of they having not signed the motion of no confidence, rather the Collector being satisfied with the notice of no confidence along with the proposed motion, correctly issued the notice to the members fixing a date for consideration of the no confidence motion. As regards the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners that no confidence motion was not accompanied with the notice issued under Section 15(3) of the 1961 Act, it has been contended that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2013(2) UPLBEC 1193 has held that there is only to be a substantial compliance of the provisions and that the rule providing for Prapatra-A and Prapatra-B is not mandatory. As regards the notice of no confidence motion not having been given in person to the Collector rather having been given to the Chief Revenue Officer, it has been contended that the Chief Revenue Officer after receiving the said notice handed it over to the Collector and thereafter it was only the Collector who proceeded with the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 15(3) of the 1961 Act. It was also contended that as the provisions of Section 15 of the 1961 Act did not provide for any consequence if the notice is not delivered to the Collector himself consequently the provision would be read as directory and not mandatory and as such substantial compliance of the provision would itself be sufficient. 14. As regards the secrecy of ballot and violation of the 1966 Rules, it has been contended that as the said plea has been raised in rejoinder, the same cannot be accepted. However, on merits it has been contended that the 1966 Rules itself speaks of the ballot paper to bear a serial number and list on which the members are required to sign as token of receipt of ballot and thus if there was any serial number on the counterfoil the same would not violate the secrecy of the voting as it is a requirement of the 1966 Rules. It has also been contended that the no confidence motion itself provides for a written notice to be signed by the members and for a debate before the voting and therefore all present would be knowing of the proceedings and consequently there cannot be any question of secrecy as is sought to be contended and argued on behalf of the petitioner. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2005(2) AWC 1732 as well as a Division judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Raghava Reddi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1975 AP 123 . 15. 15. Sri Tiwari also contends that once a majority of the elected members have moved the notice of no confidence against the petitioner No.1, the same itself indicates that the said majority of elected members do not have any confidence in the petitioner No.1 as Pramukh and consequently, it being a democratic process, he should face the same and in case he is so sanguine in the belief that 56 members are in his support and are against the motion of no confidence the same would fail on the appointed date and as such, the petitioner would have nothing to fear. 16. On the other hand Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, while filing the affidavit of erstwhile District Magistrate Sri Sharad Kumar Singh, have contended that the written notice of intention to make the motion which was signed by more than half of the total number of the members, was personally presented by the members of the Kshetra Panchayat before the Chief Revenue Officer and the Chief Revenue Officer put up the same before the Collector upon which the Collector had directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to submit the report after examining the same. It was after due examination that the notice had been issued to each member of the Kshetra Panchayat, Gaura informing that the meeting of no confidence motion will be held on 22.9.2017. It has also been indicated that provisions of Section 15(3) of the 1961 Act have been fully complied with while issuing the notice. 17. The affidavit of the subsequent District Magistrate Sri Sambhu Kumar has also been filed in which also it has been contended that the notice was presented by the members of the Kshetra Panchayat before the Chief Revenue Officer who put up the same before the then District Magistrate to which the then District Magistrate had directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to submit a report after examining the same. It has also been contended that provisions of the 1961 Act have been followed while issuing the notice. 18. It has also been contended that provisions of the 1961 Act have been followed while issuing the notice. 18. Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, while arguing the matter, has placed reliance on the averments contained in the counter affidavit per which it has been contended that the written notice of intention to make the motion along with proposed motion signed by 72 members out of total of 90 members, was sought to be presented before the District Magistrate on 29.8.2017. However, as the District Magistrate was busy in administrative work, therefore, he directed the Chief Revenue Officer to receive the notice for motion which was received by the Chief Revenue Officer on the same date i.e. 29.8.2017 after duly verifying the genuineness of the member presenting the same being one of the signatory of the notice and the notice along with the proposed motion was delivered to the Collector on 29.8.2017 itself. Eventually the Collector directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to submit a report and thereafter the same was approved by the Collector on 31.8.2017 and the notice of meeting dated 31.8.2017 was issued fixing the date of meeting as 22.9.2017. The said notices were dispatched through registered post as well as by hand on 1.9.2017. It is also contended that the 1961 Act has been strictly followed and that even if the written notice is not in the form prescribed or not signed by at least half of the total members but is accompanied by the proposed motion which is signed by more than half of the members, statutory requirement of Section 15(2) gets sufficed and any lapse thereof would not vitiate the proceedings of no confidence. It is contended that the purpose of Section 15 of the 1961 Act being based upon the fundamental principles of democracy that those who elect can also remove the elected person by expressing no confidence and moving a motion in this regard and the petitioner No.1 having been elected as Chairman by the members who have now brought the motion of no confidence, consequently the no confidence motion has to be carried out and cannot be nullified on technical grounds as are sought to be raised by the petitioners. 19. 19. As regards the alleged violation of the 1966 Rules, Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel has contended that Rule 5 of the 1966 Rules itself provides for supply of a ballot paper to every member wishing to vote which has to bear a serial number and as per Rule 6(2) of the 1966 Rules the member has to sign on the said list against his name in token of the receipt of the ballot paper and thus contends that mandatorily the ballot paper has to be numbered as per the provisions of the 1966 Rules and consequently there is no error or violation of secrecy if during voting the ballot papers bearing serial number are given for the purpose of voting to the elected members. 20. As regard the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners that the motion of no confidence was not annexed with the notice received by the petitioners despite the said notice indicating that the motion was annexed, Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel contends that even if the copy of the proposed motion was not annexed with the notices yet the notices were also sent through personal messenger which, in fact, have been received by the elected members as per the acknowledgement receipt available bearing the signatures of the elected members yet it is only the petitioners, who are 7 in number, who are raising the issue of non receipt of motion of no confidence while none of the other elected members have raised this issue and consequently it appears that the said issue is patently frivolous as no prejudice is caused to the petitioners in this regard. It is also submitted that the endorsement of receipt of the notice sent by special messenger does not incorporate any objection regarding motion being nor annexed with the notice which will raise a presumption that the notice was accompanied by all the annexures mentioned therein. 21. We have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the original records produced by the State-respondents. 22. The procedure of moving of motion of no confidence in the case of Pramukh is set out in Section 15 of the 1961 Act which, for the sake of convenience, is being reproduced below:- “15. 21. We have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the original records produced by the State-respondents. 22. The procedure of moving of motion of no confidence in the case of Pramukh is set out in Section 15 of the 1961 Act which, for the sake of convenience, is being reproduced below:- “15. Motion of non-confidence in Pramukh-(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or any of a Kshettra Panchayat may be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following subsections. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat for the time being together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. (3) The Collector shall thereupon :- (i) convene a meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Kshettra Panchayat on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under subsection (2) was delivered to him; and (ii) give to the elected member of the Kshettra Panchayat notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. - In computing the period of thirty days specified in this sub-section, the period during which a stay order, if any, issued by a Competent Court on a petition filed against the motion made under this section is in force plus such further time as may be required in the issue of fresh notices of the meeting to the members, shall be excluded. (4) The sub-divisional officer of the sub-division in which the Kshettra Panchayat exercises jurisdiction shall preside at such meeting : Provided that if the Kshettra Panchayat exercises jurisdiction in more than one sub-division of the sub-divisional officer cannot for any reason preside, any stipendiary additional or assistant Collector named by the Collector shall preside at the meeting. (4) The sub-divisional officer of the sub-division in which the Kshettra Panchayat exercises jurisdiction shall preside at such meeting : Provided that if the Kshettra Panchayat exercises jurisdiction in more than one sub-division of the sub-divisional officer cannot for any reason preside, any stipendiary additional or assistant Collector named by the Collector shall preside at the meeting. (4A) If within an hour from the time appointed for the meeting such officer is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and time to be appointed by him under sub-section (4B). (4B) If the Officer mentioned in sub-section (4) is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons, adjourn the meeting to such other date and time as he may appoint, but not later than 25 days from the date appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3). He shall without delay inform the Collector in writing of the adjournment of the meeting. The Collector shall give to the members at least ten days' notice of the next meeting in the manner prescribed under sub-section 3. (5) Save as provided in sub-sections (4-A) and (4-B), a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section, shall not be adjourned. (6) As soon as the meeting convened under this section commences, the Presiding Officer shall read to the Kshettra Panchayat the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for debate. (7) No debate on the motion under this section shall be adjourned. (8) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiration of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. On the conclusion of the debate or on the expiration of the said period of two hours, whichever is earlier, the motion shall be put to vote which shall be held in the prescribed manner by secret ballot. (9) The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (10) A copy of the minutes of the meeting, together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon, shall be forwarded forthwith on the termination of the meeting by the Presiding Officer to the State Government and to the Zila Panchayat having jurisdiction. (10) A copy of the minutes of the meeting, together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon, shall be forwarded forthwith on the termination of the meeting by the Presiding Officer to the State Government and to the Zila Panchayat having jurisdiction. (11) If the motion is carried with the support of more than half of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat for the time being – (a) the Presiding Officer shall cause the fact to be published by affixing a notice thereof on the notice board of the office of the Kshettra Panchayat and also by notifying the same in the Gazette; and (b) the Pramukh or, as the case may be, shall cease to hold office as such and vacate the same on and from the date next following that on which the said notice is fixed on the notice board of the office of the Kshettra Panchayat. (12) If the motion is not carried as aforesaid or if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Pramukh or shall be received until after the expiration of [one year] from the date of such meeting. (13) No notice of a motion under this section shall be received within two years of the assumption of office by a Pramukh or, as the case may be.” 23. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that a motion expressing no confidence in the Pramukh has to be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the 1961. 24. The argument being raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that because Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act provides that written notice of intention to make the motion along with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person to the Collector, as such the same is mandatory and accordingly no other authority except the Collector could have received the said notice and in the instant case the notice having admittedly been received by the Chief Revenue Officer, as such the mandatory provision, as set out in Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act, has been violated and accordingly any such action taken on the basis of such notice would be vitiated in the eyes of law. Thus, as per Dr. L.P. Misra, once the mandatory provision of delivering the notice personally to the Collector has not been adhered to consequently all the action would become vitiated in the eyes of law. In this regard, as already indicated above, strong reliance was placed on the affidavits filed by the erstwhile District Magistrate and the present District Magistrate namely Shri Sharad Kumar Singh and Sri Sambhu Kumar respectively who have contended that notice of no confidence motion was received by the Chief Revenue Officer and was then put up before the District Magistrate. 25. Thus the question whether the word “shall” as used in Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act would be treated as mandatory for the purpose of the notice to be personally handed over to the Collector in his hand and its non compliance would render the entire action bad in the eyes of law is to be answered. The said issue is no longer res integra taking into consideration a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rama Devi vs. State of U.P. and others in Misc. Bench No.3098 of 2018 decided on 2.2.2018 in which after considering almost entire law on the subject, the Division Bench has held as under:- “24. Armed with the said conclusions as have been culled out from the aforesaid judgments, what we find is that the intention of the legislature by incorporating the word “shall” in sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the 1961 Act is to ensure that the copy of the proposed motion reaches the Collector and it is the Collector alone who is to convene the meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat for the consideration of the motion after giving to the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat notice of such meeting as specified in Section 15(3) of the 1961 Act. Thus the purpose of Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act is to ensure that the Collector gets a copy of the proposed motion which is to be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the notice. Thus the purpose of Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act is to ensure that the Collector gets a copy of the proposed motion which is to be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the notice. The said delivery of notice is thus mandatory but the contention on the part of the petitioner that it is the Collector alone who can receive the said notice would only be a procedural requirement and will fall within the realm of being a directory provision and merely because the notice has not been handed in the hands of the Collector would not vitiate the notice as is sought to be made out by the petitioner. Moreover, no prejudice is caused to the Pramukh in case the notice is not handed over in the hands of the Collector, as sought to be set out by the petitioner inasmuch as the intention of the no confidence motion and a meeting convened in pursuance thereof would be to test the confidence of the Pramukh amongst the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat who initially elected the Pramukh from amongst themselves in terms of Section 7 of the 1961 Act and the said Pramukh would only continue till such time the elected members continue to express their confidence upon him. Thus, in our considered opinion, delivery of the proposed motion in the hands of the Collector is only a directory provision and not mandatory and the notice of no confidence would not be vitiated merely because the notice was not given to/received personally by the Collector.” 26. Thus the first argument raised on behalf of the petitioners stands rejected keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Rama Devi (supra). 27. As regards the case-laws cited on behalf of the petitioners on this issue in the case of Ratan Anmol Singh (supra), the same pertains to rejection of nomination paper by the returning officer on the ground of there being no signature or not being subscribed which is not the case here. The judgments in the case of Viresh Kumar Tiwari and Awadhesh Singh (supra), do not pertain to the alleged personally handing over of notice of no confidence to the Collector or a motion to be personally given and as such the same would have no applicability to the question involved in the instant case. 28. The judgments in the case of Viresh Kumar Tiwari and Awadhesh Singh (supra), do not pertain to the alleged personally handing over of notice of no confidence to the Collector or a motion to be personally given and as such the same would have no applicability to the question involved in the instant case. 28. The second issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the copy of no confidence motion was not annexed with the notice as issued by the Collector (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Even this question/argument may not detain us particularly taking into consideration the fact that firstly it is only the 11 petitioners, of which petitioners No.4, 6, 7 and 11 have already denied filing of the writ petition, are raising the issue of non receipt of the motion though a majority of them i.e. 48 members who have filed an application for intervention have not raised any such issue. Secondly a perusal of the original record indicates about the notices having been served personally which we ourselves have perused and as has been specifically stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. Moreover, the notices which have been served personally contain the signatures of the members receiving the said notice and no other elected members barring the aforesaid petitioners, have taken this plea of non receipt of the proposed motion and consequently the petitioners cannot get any benefit of the same. Further this issue has also been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi (supra) wherein the Full Bench has concluded in paragraph 79(iii) of its judgment as under:- 79. Our answers to the questions referred including the question No.1, which has been re-framed by us, are as follows:- (I) …………………... (ii) ……………. (iii)The notice sent by the Collector convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence cannot be invalidated on the ground that copy of the notice with the name of the person who had signed the written notice of intention, was not sent along with the notice. When proposed motion of no confidence is signed by the requisite members, the notice convening the meeting cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that some pages of the proposed motion containing signatures of some members only were sent along with the notice. 29. When proposed motion of no confidence is signed by the requisite members, the notice convening the meeting cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that some pages of the proposed motion containing signatures of some members only were sent along with the notice. 29. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this ground of the petitioners is also negated and rejected. 30. As regards the case-laws cited by the petitioners in the case of Babu Ram Upadhya, Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel, Usha Bharti, Raviyashwant Bhoir and Mohan Lal Tripathi (supra), the same may not detain us inasmuch as the issue pertaining to the mandatory nature of Section 15 of the 1961 Act has been discussed threadbare in the case of Vikas Trivedi (supra) and consequently none of the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner in this regard would have any applicability in the facts of the case herein. 31. The third ground taken by the petitioners pertains to the Collector having not held an inquiry when 56 members allegedly submitted their affidavits denying moving of the alleged no confidence motion on 31.8.2017. This issue is also no longer res integra taking into consideration the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi (supra) wherein the Full Bench has held that it was not open to the Collector to launch a detailed evidentiary inquiry into the validity of the signatures which are appended to the notice as the same would be outside the purview of Section 15 of the 961 Act and the Collector has the discretion to determine whether the notice fulfills the essential requirement of a valid notice under Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act. Thus keeping in view the authoritative pronouncement of law by the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi (supra), this argument of the petitioners is negated and is rejected. 32. As regards the grounds of malafide taken against the respondent No.4, we have gone through the allegations levelled personally against the respondent No.4. The said allegations are vague and suffice to state that this Court had not issued notice to the respondent No.4 pertaining to the vague allegations made in the writ petition against him. Apart from this, the respondent No.4 is not the elected member of the Kshetra Panchayat. The said allegations are vague and suffice to state that this Court had not issued notice to the respondent No.4 pertaining to the vague allegations made in the writ petition against him. Apart from this, the respondent No.4 is not the elected member of the Kshetra Panchayat. Further, the Pramukh who is initially elected from amongst the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat in terms of Section 7 of the 1961 Act can only continue till such time the elected members continue to express their confidence upon him. Consequently no amount of alleged malafides levelled against the respondent No.4 can depart from the fact that the Pramukh can only continue till such time the elected members continue to have confidence upon him. Moreover, Section 15(6) of the 1961 Act also provides that as soon as the meeting is convened for the purpose of consideration of no confidence motion, the motion shall be read out and the same would be open for debate. Once it is an open meeting, it would always be open for the Pramukh to face the no confidence motion and to try and convince the elected members participating in the debate about his ability and for reposing confidence in him unhindered and without any interference by any third party including the respondent No.4 who cannot attend the said meeting. Thus this argument raised by the petitioners also fails and is rejected. 33. As regards the case-law cited on behalf of the petitioners in the case of P.N. Srivastava (supra), this Court has itself found that the allegations of malafides levelled against the respondent No.4 are vague and for this reason this Court did not issue notice to respondent No.4. Moreover, the respondent No.4 having no role in the debate for the no confidence motion as has already been discussed above and consequently the judgment in the case of P.N. Srivastava (supra) would have no applicability here. 34. Moreover, the respondent No.4 having no role in the debate for the no confidence motion as has already been discussed above and consequently the judgment in the case of P.N. Srivastava (supra) would have no applicability here. 34. So far as argument of violation of the 1966 Rules is concerned pertaining to the ballot paper having been numbered and secondly the secrecy of the ballot paper having been jeopardized, suffice to state that Rule 5 along with Rule 6(2) of the 1966 Rules themselves indicate that the ballot paper to be supplied shall bear a serial number and the official seal and signature of the Presiding Officer and that the member shall sign on the list against his name in token of receipt of the ballot paper and thereafter vote. Thus the 1966 Rules themselves provide for numbering of the ballot paper and the member to sign against his name in token of receipt of the ballot paper while receiving the ballot paper prior to voting and consequently the apprehension of the petitioners that the persons voting would be identified is misconceived and baseless. Even otherwise, once the 1961 Act itself provides for a debate and participation of the elected members while considering the no confidence motion then the natural corollary is that the views of the elected members while discussing the no confidence motion would be known to all members participating in the said meeting. Hence the argument on this point is also misconceived and consequently is rejected by us. 35. As regards the case-laws cited on behalf of the petitioners in the case of Vidyacharan Shukla, S. Raghbir Singh Gill, People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Smt. Kalawati Devi (supra), suffice to state that the same are clearly distinguishable on their own facts particularly taking into consideration the fact that voting against the Pramukh, as per the petitioners themselves, is to be done in accordance with the 1966 Rules which provide for each ballot paper to bear a serial number. Apart from this once there is a debate to discuss the no confidence motion, consequently the views of all the members participating in debate would become known to others present in the said debate and hence the aforesaid judgments would not be applicable in the facts of the instant case. 36. Apart from this once there is a debate to discuss the no confidence motion, consequently the views of all the members participating in debate would become known to others present in the said debate and hence the aforesaid judgments would not be applicable in the facts of the instant case. 36. So far as the contention on the part of the petitioners that where a thing is to be done in a prescribed manner the other modes are prohibited and reliance on the judgment of Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmad (supra) as well as on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singhara Singh and others and Hardeep Singh (supra) and on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chhatrapal Singh (supra), suffice to state that there can be no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition of law as the same is settled by long line of judgments. However, here we have arrived at a specific finding taking into consideration the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi (supra) as to which of the provisions of the 1961 Act are to be read as mandatory or directory and we find that none of the mandatory provisions have been violated in the instant case so as to vitiate the impugned notice. 37. The fallout of the aforesaid discussions is that none of the grounds taken by the petitioners have any substance. The writ petition fails and is consequently dismissed. 38. The original records have been handed back to the learned Standing Counsel.