By the Court.—Lok Singh has filed two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 451 (MB) of 2008 alongwith seven petitioners and Writ Petition No. 5880 (MB) of 2008 by himself alone.

2. This writ petition challenges the motion of no confidence, which is said to have been carried through on 16.6.08.

3. The main challenge is based on the argument that no notice was issued or served upon the petitioner before the date of meeting or even thereafter and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

4. The next argument is that even the notice of proposed no confidence motion was not properly presented before the Collector and the motion was not signed by ten members, though, it should be signed by more than half of the members of the Zila Panchayat.

5. The last argument is that the meeting was conducted in the Meeting Hall of the Collectorate, whereas under the rules, it was to be conducted in the Committee Hall of the Zila Panchayat.

6. Sri Anuj Kudesia, Counsel for the State, has produced the record, which shows that the motion of no confidence with due notice was presented before the Collector on 23rd May, 2008, which was duly signed by the adequate number of persons. The record also shows that the notice was signed by ten members as against the total membership of fifteen. The motion of no confidence was signed by two members and it was presented by one Sri Jitendra, one of the members in person, who was the signatory to the notice.

7. The District Magistrate/Collector has passed an order on 24th May, 2008 for issuance of the notices by registered post to all the members and fixed 16.6.08, as the date of meeting at 11 O’clock in the Meeting Hall of the Collectorate of Gautam Budh Nagar.

8. The record also shows the postal receipts, as an evidence that the notices were actually dispatched through the Post Office and there is a presumption that the same has been received by the addressee, unless returned undelivered. These postal receipts show that the notices were sent by speed post, which according to the respondents, is also a registered post.

9. The presentation of the no confidence motion alongwith the notice before the Collector under Section 28 requires that a written notice of intent on to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of elected members of the Zila 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 Zila Panchayat.

10. The requirement thus, is that the notice is to be signed by not less than half of the elected members of Zila Panchayat, which is to be presented in person by any one of the members signing the notice, before the Collector alongwith the copy of the proposed motion.

11. The aforesaid provision does not require anywhere that the proposed motion of no confidence should also be signed by more than half of the elected members of Zila Panchayat. The requirement thus under Section 28 having been fulfilled, we do not find any illegality in the acceptance of notice by the Collector. The Collector on his turn immediately took cognizance of the said notice and fixed a date of meeting with the Civil Judge, as Presiding Officer and also directed to issue notices to all the members, which were actually issued in time.

12. The next plea is that the petitioner did not receive the notice and he has made an enquiry from the Post Office concerned, who had given a certificate that no registered letter in the name of the petitioner has been received right from 20th May, 2008 till 16th June, 2008 and, therefore, in the absence of any notice to the petitioner, the meeting so held is vitiated and the proceedings thereof, cannot have any legal sanctity nor the declaration that the motion stands passed, can have any legal binding.

13. Submission is that, since the meeting itself was not convened after due