By the Court.—Counter-affidavit filed today on behalf of contesting respondent is taken on record. It is not necessary to provide further time for filing of counter-affidavits to the State-respondents, in view of the admitted facts, as they exist on record.

2. Heard Sri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Vardhan, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. Petitioner, before this Court, is a member of Kshetra Panchayat, Block Ghughali, District Maharajganj. Respondent No. 5 has been elected as Block Pramukh of the same Kshetra Panchayat. Total number of elected members of Kshetra Panchayat is 82.

4. Petitioner alongwith 48 other members of the Kshetra Panchayat submitted a notice for no confidence motion being moved against the Block Pramukh under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Khsetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1961”) on 3rd October, 2013. The District Magistrate permitted the statutory period prescribed for convening a meeting for motion of no confidence to lapse without taking any decision on the notice of no confidence.

5. Petitioner therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61520 of 2013. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 11th November, 2013 with liberty to file a proper petition. Therefore, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62372 of 2013. Ojbection was raised on behalf of Block Pramukh that the signatures of the members appended on the motion of no confidence were forged. Writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 14th November, 2013 requiring the District Magistrate to examine the matter and to pass a reasoned speaking order.

6. The District Magistrate, in compliance of the order of the High Court, has passed order dated 9th December, 2013 and has recorded following findings:

7. There are 82 elected members of Kshetra Panchayat. Notice of no confidence was presented with the signatures of 49 members. Signatures/thumb impressions were got verified through the In-charge District Magistrate. As against 82 members, 36 appeared and their signatures/thumb impression were verified. 19 persons, who had signed the motion, had submitted their affidavits in support of motion. As against these 19 affidavits supporting the motion, respondent No. 5 filed affidavits of these very 19 members stating therein that the earlier affidavit were wrong.

8. Notice was issued to the said 19 members to appear before the District Magistrate. 17 were served, while notice on 2 could not be served. On the date and time fixed, 7 members appeared and stated that the affidavits filed in support of the notice of no confidence was correct and the affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 were forged affidavits. Yet the District Magistrate under the order dated 9th December, 2013 has held that since 10 members, who had filed their affidavits in support of motion of no confidence, did not appear and notice on 2 could not be served, motion can be said to be supported by 37 members only, when the minimum required is 41. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a manifest illegality in the order of the District Magistrate, inasmuch as merely because 10 members, who had given affidavits in support of motion, did not appear, it could not have been recorded by the District Magistrate that their affidavits were forged or they were not supporting the motion. Similarly it is stated that if service could be effected two person, it would not mean that their signatures to the motion were forged.

10. In the counter-affidavit filed today on behalf of contesting respondent No. 5, it has been stated that petitioners have failed to establish that the notice of no confidence is supported by 41 members and therefore, the order impugned is justified. It is further stated that since 19 members have submitte