JUDGMENT :

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. The petitioner, who is an elected member of Kshettra Panchayat constituted under the Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961¹[Act, 1961] delivered in person a written notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence in the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat in proper form which was signed by more than half of the total number of elected members of Kshettra Panchayat i.e. 70 members out of 100 members, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the Collector, Azamgarh, who had jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. This notice of no confidence was moved on 7.3.2025 in accordance with Section15(2) of the Act, 1961.

2. The respondent no. 2 i.e. Collector/District Magistrate, Azamgarh, it is alleged, did not take any action on the notice dated 7.3.2025. Thereafter, within a period of five days on 12.3.2025, 69 members of Kshettra Panchayat allegedly filed notarized affidavit in support of Block Pramukh, enclosed with a letter of the Block Pramukh of the same date, stating that they had not participated in any meeting to propose motion of no confidence against the respondent no.3 and had not signed affidavit regarding the same. Thereafter, by means of the impugned order dated 20.3.2025, the notice dated 7.3.2025 expressing no confidence was found to be not maintainable and was rejected.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the written notice of intention as envisaged in Section 15(2) of the Act, 1961 is moved before the Collector, the Collector has no option, but to proceed to convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of motion at the office of Kshettra Panchayat on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than 30 days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act is delivered to him and is mandated to give to the elected members of Kshettra Panchayat a notice of not less than 15 days of such meeting. The Collector cannot embark on a fact finding exercise and collect evidence in that regard. No trial can be conducted by the Collector as he does not have the trapping of the court. Reference has been made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad , 1966 ALJ 612.

4. It is stated that the impugned order reflects that 69 affidavits were submitted by the alleged members of Kshettra Panchyat before the Collector on 12.3.2025 stating that they were completely satisfied with the manner of working and the work of Pramukh, who is working for the benefits of Kshettra Panchayat and has done a lot of development works; that 34 members of Kshettra Panchayat had allegedly appeared before the Collector on 20.3.2025, on which date the impugned order was passed; that they submitted affidavits allegedly signed by them stating that they were fully satisfied with the manner of working and the work of the Block Pramukh and expressedconfidence in him, and that they had never signed any affidavits expressing want of confidence in Block Pramukh and if any such affidavits had been filed, the same should be taken as void; that the impugned order reflects that since 34 of the signatories to the written notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence had submitted their affidavits on 20.3.2025, the remaining signatories to the written notice of intention are reduced to 36 w