ORDER : (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.) 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to place all the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. 10.2. That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 09/07/2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 in case No.202106061000013/A-89(6)/2020-21. 10.3. That, the Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to declare the No-Confidence Motion dated 09/07/2021 (Annexure P-7) as passed. 10.4. That such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the elected Panchas of Village Panchayat- Bhadripali, Janpad Panchayat- Sakti. They have submitted an application for bringing “No Confidence Motion” against respondent No.5 (Sarpanch) of Village Panchayat- Bhadripali, Janpad Panchayat Sakti. Based on the application/notice submitted before the Prescribed Authority, notice was issued in terms of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav), Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1994”) fixing the date, time and place of the meeting. On the date fixed, meeting was convened and all 11 elected Panchas including the Sarpanch participated in the proceedings of “No confidence Motion”. After discussion, the polling was done and the Presiding Officer recorded in the proceeding that out of 11, 8 votes casted in favour of “Motion of No Confidence”, 2 votes against the Motion and 1 was declared Invalid. The 1 vote which was declared as Invalid in fact was a valid vote wherein the tick mark was made by one of the Panchas which was little small and, therefore, it ought to have been counted in favour of “Motion of No Confidence”. Had the said 1 vote declared Invalid is counted in favour of Motion, the “Motion of No Confidence” could have been carried out with the majority. Had the said 1 vote declared Invalid is counted in favour of Motion, the “Motion of No Confidence” could have been carried out with the majority. He submits that though other grounds are also taken in the writ petition, however, he is not pressing the said grounds as the issue inviolved herein has been considered and decided in the decision passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Deshraj Singh Vs Gram Panchayat and Ors. [ 1999 (1) MPLJ 621 ]. He further places reliance upon in the decision of Sharda Bai Khatik Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [ 1997 (2) MPLJ 291 ]. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there is no error in convening the proceeding by the Prescribed Authority and counting of votes. Presiding Officer has very correctly recorded that 8 votes have been casted in favour of “Motion of No Confidence”, 2 against the Motion and 1 has been declared to be Invalid. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the tick mark which is small in size has not been considered, is without any basis. No material is placed in this regard. He also submits that as per observation of this Court, the ballot-paper in sealed cover is called for perusal of Court. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5/ Sapanch also adopts the submission of learned counsel for the State and opposing the pleadings made in the writ petition would submit that for carrying out “No Confidence Motion”, Motion could be carried only when the voting is in majority by the elected Panchas asking for bringing “No Confidence Motion” against the office bearer of Panchayat, which in this case is lacking. He submits that requisite majority as per the coram of 11 elected Members, for bringing “No Confidence Motion” in accordance with Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “Adhiniyam, 1993”) , is 8.25. However, in the meeting of “Motion of No Confidence”, only 8 votes have been casted in favour of the “Motion of No Confidence” which is less than the requisite number of votes required for carrying out “No Confidence Motion” with majority. 5. However, in the meeting of “Motion of No Confidence”, only 8 votes have been casted in favour of the “Motion of No Confidence” which is less than the requisite number of votes required for carrying out “No Confidence Motion” with majority. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are 9 petitioners in this writ petition who have specifically pleaded and stated that all of them have casted their votes by putting tick mark as required under the law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Manner of putting sign/symbol on ballot-paper by the elected Panchas participating in the meeting is provided under Rule 5 (5) of the Rules of 1994, which reads as under:- “5. Conduct of meeting :- x x x x x x (5) On the conclusion of the debate on the motion, the Presiding Officer shall call the members present in the meeting one by one and shall give them ballot paper duly signed by him to indicate its authenticity, to cast his vote for or against the motion. The member who wants to vote in favour of the motion shall affix the symbol (v) and the member who wants to vote against the motion shall affix the symbol 'X'. After the member has recorded his vote, he shall fold the ballot paper to maintain secrecy and put it in the ballot box kept on the table of the Presiding Officer.” 8. Pursuant to nature of controversy raised in this writ petition, this Court directed State counsel to produce the ballot-paper vide order dated 04.07.2023. Accordingly, a sealed envelope with ballot-paper polled in “No Confidence Motion” meeting held on 09.07.2021 of Village Panchayat- Bhadripali has been produced before this Court which is opened in presence of learned counsel for the respective parties. From perusal of the ballot-paper, it is not appearing that over one ballot-paper, which was declared Invalid, tick (v) mark is intended to put. But it is marked as (?) which is not the mark as provided to be put in ballot-paper as per Rule 5 (5) of the Rules of 1994. 9. In the present case, perusal of the ballot- paper which has been declared to be Invalid does not clearly mention the intention of voter that he intended to put tick mark in the ballot-paper. 9. In the present case, perusal of the ballot- paper which has been declared to be Invalid does not clearly mention the intention of voter that he intended to put tick mark in the ballot-paper. The sign/symbol which is provided under the relevant Act or Rules is only required to be put in ballot-paper when the person is casting votes either in favour or against the Motion. Perusal of the ballot-paper which is declared to be Invalid does not reflect the intention of the said voter that he intended to put tick mark looking to the sign/symbol available in the said ballot- paper. 10. In the case of Sharda Bai Khatik (supra), after perusing the invalid ballot-paper, Court opined that the sign/symbol appears to be of (v) and in that circumstances, the order was passed. In the case at hand, the sign/symbol is not nearer to be of (v) . There may be chance that any one of the petitioner though showing himself to be one side but for some reason in the situation of “No Confidence” was not by heart wants to support the group of Panchas and purposefully had made some other sign. 11. For the foregoing discussions and the sign/symbol available in the ballot-paper which is perused by this Court, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 12. The writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. 13. The envelope containing ballot-paper which is produced for perusal of the Court is returned back to learned counsel for the State after sealing and signing over it by learned counsel for the respective parties.