- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel for the State authorities and Sri S. A. Shah for the 4th respondent.
(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the peti tion deserves to be allowed in view of my judgment of date in Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 40873 of 1997, Smi. Meera Devi v. State of U. P. and others. The petitioner was admittedly not allowed to cast Ms vote, as would be evident from the order dated 23-9-97, a copy of which has been annexed 'as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Minutes of no-confidence meeting (An-nexure-6 to the writ petition) show that nine votes were polled in favour of the motion and four against the motion. Had the petitioner been allowed to cast his vote, the motion would have failed for want of two thirds majority as stipulated by Section 14of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Accordingly following the decision in Meera Devi's case (supra), I allow the instant petition and quash the proceedings of no-confidence held in the meeting dated 25-9-97 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner shall be res tored to the office of the Pradhan and he shall be allowed to continue until removed from the office in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .;