K.N.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Basodhi in the year 1972. A notice, dated 30-11-1974 indicating an intention to motion of no confidence against the petitioner was handed over to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer on 6-1-1975 fixed 23-1-1975 for convening a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Before the meeting could be held, the petitioner made an application alleging therein that a number of signatures on the notice were not genuine and that an inquiry be made. This meeting scheduled on 23-1-1975 was also adjourned. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ No. 2637 of 1975 challenging the validity of the notice convening the meeting. While entertaining the petition this Court directed that the meeting summoned for consideration of motion of no confidence shall be held as scheduled but the resolution, if any, passed against the petitioner shall not be given effect to till further orders of the Court. The meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence was actually held on 1-3-1975. In that meeting 271 persons voted in favour of the motion and only 9 voted against it. Writ No. 513 of 1976 has been filed challenging the validity of the meeting held on 1-3-1975 and the resolution passed against the petitioner.
(2.) As regards the first writ petition, the meeting had been validly called for 23-1-1975. It was on the application of the petitioner that an inquiry was got made regarding the genuineness of the signatures on the notice handed over to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The meeting held on 1-3-1975 was certainly beyond 30 days of the notice of intention to move the motion of no confidence but that delay had been occasioned because of the application made by the petitioner himself for making an inquiry about the genuineness of the signatures on the notice. He cannot be heard to complain now that the meeting was called beyond 30 days of the notice of intention to move the motion of no confidence.
(3.) As regards the second writ petition, it is not in dispute that the time between 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. was for the discussion on the motion of no confidence and thereafter voting could be done up to 5.00 p.m. od that date. At about 1.40 p.m. an application was made to the Presiding Officer to permit the applicants to cast their votes but the application was rejected od the ground that only persons who had participated in the meeting between 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. were entitled to cast their votes. The learned counsel contended that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was bad in law as even if a person was not present while the discussion on the motion of no confidence was on he was legally entitled to cast his vote at any time before 5.00 p.m. The contention appears to be sound As held by this Court in Harakh Nardin v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ghazipur and another, (1978 A.L. J. 807) the meeting continued till 5.00 p. m. and even persons who were not present during the discussion on the motion of no confidence, were entitled to cast their votes. However, on facts we are not. satisfied that a case for interference by this Court is made out. As noted earlier 271 votes in favour of motion of no Confidence and only 9 voted against it In the application moved at about 1.40 p. m. it was stated that as many as 100 persons wanted to cast their votes. Even if these persons had been permitted to cast heir votes that would have made no difference to the result. The votes cast in favour of motion of no confidence even in that situation would have been more than 2/3rd of the persons present and voting. The total membership of the Gaon Sabha would be wholly irrelevant. The law requires a motion of no confidence would be carried by 3rd of the members present and voting and not 2/3rd of the total membership of the Gaon Sabha. Even if these 100 persons who had expressed a desire to cast their votes are counted as members present and voting and further assumed that all these 100 persons would have cast their votes against the motion of no confidence, the motion would still have to be held to have been carried by a majority of 2/3rd of the members present and voting. The electors had clearly expressed no confidence in the petitioner. It would not be proper for this Court to ignore the clear verdict of the electors on a technical view of law. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.;