Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Issue raised in this writ petition for adjudication is in respect of the format of the ballot paper to be used by the members of the Kshetra Panchayat for the purposes of voting in a meeting to consider the motion of No Confidence.

2. Heard Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Arvind Kumar Singh appearing for respondents.

3. Facts, as unfolded in the pleading, go to show that there are 74 elected members of Kshetra Panchayat, Marehra, District Etah. Petitioner is an elected Pramukh. A motion for No Confidence was tabled signed by 42 members of the Kshetra Panchayat. District Magistrate, Etah issued a notice fixing 4.9.2017 for holding the meeting to consider the motion of No Confidence. A representation was made by the petitioner alleging that out of 42 members, who have signed the motion of No Confidence, 17 members since did not subscribe to the oath, as such, ceased to be members and, thus, the motion of No Confidence does not conform to the requirements of Section 15 (2) of the U.P. Khsetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), in accordance whereof, the notice of intention is to be signed by at least half of the total numbers of the elected members and, thus, the meeting is rendered illegal. When no decision was taken by the District Magistrate, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 38664 of 2017. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.8.2017 directed the meeting to be held as scheduled, but motion, if adverse to the petitioner, was not to be given effect to. The writ petition ultimately was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2017 with the direction that the result of the voting, which took place on 4.9.2017, be declared.

4. Petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the meeting as well as the result declared on 29.5.2017.

5. Following reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition.

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the record and quashing the entire proceedings of the impugned meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat-Marehra, District Etah, dated 4.9.2017.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the record and quashing the impugned result of the voting on the no-confidence motion, declared on 25.9.2017, which took place during the meeting dated 4.9.2017.

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as the Pramukh of the Kshetra Panchayat-Marehra, District Etah till the end of his term.”

6. Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ballot paper, which is provided for voting for a motion of No Confidence, normally consists of two columns with one option each for ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ and the members voting in the meeting, must select one option and put a mark on either of the option. However, in the case in hand, ballot paper provided in the meeting on 4.9.2017 contained only one option, which was ‘Yes’ and the members intending to vote supporting the motion, had to put a mark on ‘Yes’ and such members, who wanted to vote against the motion, were under instructions from the Presiding Officer to put the ballot paper blank without putting any stamp or mark on it in the ballot box.

7. A sample of the ballot paper used in the meeting of No Confidence is being reproduced hereunder:

^^Áeq[k {ks= iapk;r ekjgjk Jh vfuy dqekj ds fo:) vfo'okl ÁLrko ij ernku gsrq Ái=A

vfuy dqekj {ks= iapk;r ds fo:) vfo'okl ÁLrko ds i{k dh n'kk esa uhps cus gq, dkye esa eksgj yxk;k tk;sxk rFkk ÁLrko ds foi{k dk fojks/k esa gS rks eqgj ugha yxk;saxs vFk~kZr eri= lknk jgsxkA eri= dks isVh esa MkysxsaA

gk¡A**

8. From a perusal of the above, it is clear that the ballot paper contained o