1. In this petition, petitioner has assailed an order passed by the Collector by which the Collector has held that no confidence motion against respondent No. 5 Smt. Keshkali was not carried out in accordance with law. Collector has come to the conclusion that one of the votes on which there were two marks, it was possible to identify the voter as such the said vote has been held to be invalid, excluding the said vote no-confidence motion was not carried out by the majority as required under section 21 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

2. Facts are not being mentioned in detail as controversy involved in this petition is whether the vote which has been held to be invalid by the Collector ought to have been treated as validly cast vote in favour of resolution of no-confidence. Following were the two marks as noticed in the order of Collector:

"[v ]" "[x]"

Collector has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the other mark which was put on ballot paper, it was possible to identity the voter as such the vote has been treated to be invalid as per mandate of rule 76 (1) (a) of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1