By the Court.—The petitioner is an elected Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat, District Ghazipur.

2. The aforesaid Kshettra Panchayat has a total strength of 120 members. A motion for no confidence in him was served on 26.2/3.2016 allegedly signed by 81 elected members, out of which 74 members also submitted their affidavits in support thereof.

3. The petitioner objected to the said motion of no confidence and filed objections. He also preferred a Writ Petition No. 12114 of 2018, Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of U.P. and others, challenging the same. It was disposed of vide order dated 9.4.2018 with the observation that the petitioner may press his application/objections before the Collector, who shall proceed in accordance with law.

4. In pursuance thereof the Collector decided the application vide order dated 17.4.2018 and the objections of the petitioner have been rejected.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid notice of no confidence, a motion of no confidence was carried out against the petitioner by the Kshettra Panchayat in its meeting held for the purpose on 22.4.2018. In the said meeting 79 members participated and 74 persons voted in favour of the motion and as such it was carried out by the majority against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order of the Collector dated 17.4.2018 and the proceedings of no confidence motion dated 22.4.2018.

7. We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Triptahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Saiful Islam Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

8. Sri Shashi Nandan, has attacked the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner basically on the ground that out of the total elected members only 69 members took oath of office in the meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat held on 18.3.2016 and that the remaining 51 members had not taken oath.

9. Some of these 51 members are signatories to the notice of intention to bring a no confidence motion and have also participated in the meeting dated 20.4.2018 and as such the entire proceedings stand vitiated in law.

10. The members, who have not taken oath of office could not have moved the motion of no confidence and at least could not have participated and voted as members of the Kshettra Panchayat.

11. The petitioner has raised this objection specifically before the Collector but he declined to address the aforesaid aspect of the matter while passing the order dated 17.4.2018 and permitting the meeting to be held on 22.4.2018 for consideration of the no confidence motion.

12. In a recent case of Kiran Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2018) 7 SCC 521, it has been opined that in such matters the jurisdiction of the Collector is only to scan the notice of intention given by the members to ensure it fulfills the essential requirements of a valid notice i.e. it is signed by more than half of the members and is delivered to him in person by anyone of those signing it or that it expresses clear intention of the proposed motion of no confidence.

13. The Collector in passing the impugned order has specifically considered the above aspects of the matter that the notice expresses the intention to bring a motion of no confidence against the petitioner, it is signed by more than half of the members and is delivered to him in person by one of the members signing it.

14. The Collector has no other job except to examine the aforesaid aspects. He has recorded that 81 members have signed the notice of intention to bring a motion of no confidence. It is supported by the affidavits of 74 members. It has been submitted in the prescribed form and has been duly delivered to him. Thus, there is no infraction in discharge of duty by the Collector in passing the order dated 17.4.2018 and there is no error or illegality in the said order.

15. The core question which remains for our consideration is