Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the no confidence motion carried out against the petitioner. Firstly on the ground that the initiation of the motion was absolutely invalid as the notice was interpolated with forged signatures and secondly the meeting was also invalid inasmuch as the said meeting was convened not on the basis of requisite majority. Sri Shukla then contends that a large number of irregularities are clearly evident which demonstrate that the motion was not carried out in accordance with law.

2. He has invited the attention of the Court to Annexures 10 and 11 to contend that the three member committee which has been constituted after the petitioner's removal has been manipulated to include the respondent No. 5 and therefore this writ petition is also grounded on mala fides.

3. The allegation which has been made in the writ petition is against the respondent No. 5.

4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the first ground on which the petition cannot be entertained is that the petitioner has not im