Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 296 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50203 of 2017
 

 
Anil Kumar				-------				Petitioner
 
					Versus
 
State of U.P. & Ors.		-------				Respondents
 

 
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.

(Per 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.

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.

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 04.09.2017 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 29.08.2017 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 12.09.2017 with the direction that the result of the voting, which took place on 04.09.2017, be declared.

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 29.05.2017.

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 04.09.2017.

(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 25.09.2017, which took place during the meeting dated 04.09.2017.

(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."

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 04.09.2017 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.

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

"प्रमुख क्षेत्र पंचायत मारहरा श्री अनिल कुमार के विरुद्ध अविस्वास प्रस्ताव

पर मतदान हेतु प्रपत्र

अनिल कुमार क्षेत्र पंचायत मारहरा के विरुद्ध अविश्वास प्रस्ताव के पक्ष की दशा में नीचे बने हुए कालम में मोहर लगाया जायेगा तथा प्रस्ताव के विपक्ष का विरोध में है तो मुहर नहीं लगायेगे अर्थात मत पत्र सादा रहेगा। मतपत्र को पेटी में डालेगें।

हाँ "

From a perusal of the above, it is clear that the ballot paper contained only one option and the instructions written thereon clearly go to show that members voting in favour of the motion had to put a stamp/mark in the column set out for the purpose, and those who wanted to vote against the motion were required to put blank ballot paper in the ballot box.

The facts mentioned above in respect of ballot paper are admitted to the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4, there is no denial of the aforesaid fact. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State of U.P., there is no denial, rather the fact has been admitted that the ballot paper contained only one option. This further stands clarified from a perusal of the minutes of the meeting filed as Annexure CA 1, which records that the voters were informed that those, who are in favour of the motion of No Confidence, must put the mark in the box, provided for the purpose, in the ballot paper and those, who want to vote against the motion, they shall not put any mark but shall put the blank paper in the ballot box.

Based on the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that members participating in the meeting of No Confidence, who were against the motion, were not given any option to express their intention as the Presiding Officer mandated them to leave the ballot paper blank, which vitiates the proceedings of No Confidence, inasmuch as the voters intending to vote against the motion were deprived of the opportunity to express their intention. It is also submitted that the purity of the election process stood breached by adopting this process, inasmuch as the requirement of putting blank ballot paper in the ballot box and, that too, without the signatures and the thumb impression of the members on the ballot paper, the possibility of their subsequent misuse cannot be ruled out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 237 of the Act, State Government has framed Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Samitis (voting on motion of No Confidence) Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules of 1966), which provide the form of the ballot paper to be used in the meeting of No Confidence. The ballot paper used in the case in hand, being completely de hors the form of ballot paper prescribed by the Rules, the entire meeting and the result thereof is vitiated in law. It is also submitted that the procedure prescribed is mandatory and the same having not been followed while conducting the voting, the meeting is rendered illegal.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent no. 4 contended that the voting of No Confidence motion was undertaken by a secret ballot and, thus, the provisions of Section 15 (8) of the Act has been substantially complied with and the proceedings would not stand vitiated merely on the ground that procedure prescribed by the Rules was not followed. It is also submitted that the Rules of 1966 provides that procedure prescribed for voting is a procedural law and not a substantial law and, thus, does not confer any right. To support the contention, reliance has been placed upon Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2013) 2 UPLBEC 1193].

Learned Standing Counsel adopted the argument of the learned counsel appearing for counsel for respondent no. 4.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

Section 15 of the Act provides for motion of No Confidence in Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. Section 15 (1) provides that a meeting expressing want of Confidence in a Pramukh or any Up-Pramukh of a Kshetra Panchayat may be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the sub-sections. Section 15 (8) relevant for the purposes of voting in a meeting of No Confidence reads as under.

"15. Motion of non-confidence in Pramukh or Up-Pramukh.

(8) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiration of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. On the conclusion of the debate or on the expiration of the said period of two hours, whichever is earlier, the motion shall be put to vote which shall be held in the prescribed manner by secret ballot."

The words "which shall be held in the prescribed manner by secret ballot" were added in the said sub-section by way of an amendment vide U.P. Act No. XVI of 1965. The word "prescribed" is defined by Section 2(19) to mean 'prescribed by the Act or by any rule made thereunder'. An analysis of the aforesaid relevant provisions makes it clear that mode and manner of tabling a motion of No Confidence and holding a meeting for the same and voting in the said meeting has to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder.

In exercise of powers conferred under Section 237 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, the State Government has framed the Rules known as U.P. Kshettra Samitis (Voting on Motions of Non-Confidence Rules), 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1966), which reads as under.

"1. Short title and commencement-

(1) These Rules may called the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis (Voting on Motions of Non-Confidence) Rules, 1966.

(2) They shall come into force from the date of their Publication in the Gazette.

2. Definitions- In these Rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-

(1) "Act" means the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961.

(2) "member" means member of a Kshettra Samiti.

(3) "Presiding Officer" means the officer presiding under sub-section (4) of section 15 of the Act at the meeting convened for consideration of the motion of non-confidence.

3. Procedure of meeting- As soon as the debate on a motion of non-confidence has concluded or the period of two hours for a debate thereon under sub-section (8) of section 15 of the Act has expired, the Presiding Officer shall announce that the motion shall be put to vote which shall be held by secret ballot.

4. Secrecy of Ballot- The Presiding Officer shall cause such arrangements to be made as will ensure the secrecy of the ballot.

5.Ballot Paper- Every member wishing to vote shall be supplied a ballot paper which shall bear a serial number and the official seal and signature of the Presiding Officer on one side and the words "Yes" and "No" written on the other.

6. Issue of Ballot Paper- (1) The Presiding Officer shall have before him a list of members of the Kshettra Samiti and shall thoroughly satisfy himself about the identity of the member before issuing a ballot paper to him.

(2) "The member shall sign on the said list against his name in token of the receipt of the ballot paper.

(3) If the Presiding Officer is not satisfied about the identity of any person, he may refuse to deliver a ballot paper to him after recording a brief note about the circumstances in which the refusal was made.

7. Voting- (1) Every member wishing to record his vote shall do so in person and not by proxy:

Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to prohibit the rendering of any assistance to any member who, on account of any physical infirmity or illiteracy is unable to record his vote on the ballot paper and requests for such assistance.

(2) The member shall put a (tick) "√" or (cross) "X" on the mark ballot paper against the word "Yes" or "No" according as he is in favour or against the motion of non-confidence respectively, and shall not put his signature or write his name on the ballot paper or make any other mark by which the secrecy of the ballot paper may be infringed.

(3) The member shall then fold up the ballot paper so as to conceal the mark put by him and insert the same in the ballot box placed in view of the Presiding Officer.

8. Disposal of "Returned and Cancelled" ballot paper- (1) A member who has inadvertently dealt with his ballot paper in such a manner that it cannot be conveniently used as a ballot paper may, on returning it to the Presiding Officer and on satisfying him of the inadvertence, obtain another ballot paper in place of the ballot paper so returned and the latter shall together with its counterfoil be marked as "Returned and cancelled" by the Presiding Officer and kept in a separate envelope set apart for the purpose.

(2) If a member after obtaining a ballot paper decides not to use it, he shall return such ballot paper to the Presiding Officer who shall deal with the said ballot paper in the same manner as prescribed in sub-rule (1).

9. Ballot Box- The ballot box shall be of any of the types approved by the Director of Elections (Local Bodies) under sub-para (2) of para 37 of the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1953.

10. Inspection of Ballot Box- Before the commencement of the voting, the ballot box shall be shown to open to such members as may be present at the meeting and shall thereafter be secured and sealed in such manner that the slit for the insertion of the ballot papers remains open.

11. Counting of votes and declaration of result- The Presiding Officer shall immediately after the voting is over-

(a) count the votes before such members as may be present and declare the number of votes cast in favour of the motion and those cast against it:

Provided that in the event of their being an equality votes cast in favour of or against the motion, the result shall be determined by the drawing of lots.

(b) declare the result.

12. Validity of Ballot Papers- Any ballot paper which contains marks against both the words "Yes" and "No" or which bears any mark or any signature of any voter by which he can be identified or which does not bear a serial number or the official seal or signature as required under rule 5 shall be invalid.

13. Custody of records and its inspection - (1) The Presiding Officer shall make into packets the ballot papers and other papers relating to the voting on the motion of non-confidence, seal the packets and note thereon a description of the contents, the name of the Kshettra Samiti and its Pramukh or Up Pramukh against whom the motion of non-confidence was considered and the date of the meeting.

(2) The packets shall be retained in safe custody in the office of the Collector for a period of six months and shall then unless otherwise directed by a competent court be destroyed.

(3) While in the custody of the Collector the packets of ballot papers which is unused, cancelled, valid or rejected and the list of members used while issuing the ballot papers shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by or produced before any person or authority except under the orders of competent court inspection of other papers shall be allowed by the Collector to any person within such hours as he may fix for the purpose.

(4) Inspection of the aforesaid records whether allowed by the competent court or the Collector under sub-rule (3) shall be subject to the condition of payment of a fee of Rs.2 (Rupees two only) per day on which the inspection is made and copies of the result declared under sub-rule (b) of rule 11 shall be furnished by the Collector to any person who may ask for the same on payment of a fee of Rs.2 (rupees two only) for each copy."

In view of the provisions of Section 15, sub-section (8) of the Act providing that motion of No Confidence shall be put to vote, which shall be held in the 'prescribed' manner and in view of the definition of the word "prescribed" contained in Section 2 (19) of the Act, it is clear that the voting ought to place in the manner prescribed by Rules of 1966. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides the format of the ballot paper, which clearly stipulates that the ballot paper shall bear a serial number and the official seal and signatures of the Presiding Officer on the one side and the words "Yes" and "No" written on the other. Similarly, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 prescribes that the member shall put a tick "√" or cross "X", on the mark ballot paper against the words "Yes" or "No", as per his intention and then fold the same and insert it in the ballot box.

Undisputedly, in the case in hand, the ballot paper was not in accordance with the prescription made in Rule 5 as it did not contain any option for such voters to put the mark on the ballot paper, who intended to vote against the motion.

According to the Black's Law Dictionary 'ballot' is an instrument, such as a paper or ball, used for casting a vote and 'vote' is the expression of one's preference or opinion in a meeting or election by ballot, show of hands, or other type of communication. 'Voter' has been defined as a person, who engages in the act of voting and has the qualifications necessary for voting.

The Law Lexicon defines 'Election' as under.

"Election, in law is when man is left to his own free will to take or to do one thing or another which he pleaseth. An election is the embodiment of popular will."

In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 851, Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the majority has observed as under.

"The most valuable right in a democratic polity is the 'little man's", little pencil marking, assenting or dissenting, called his vote. A democratic right inflicts civil consequences."

Thus, election can be said to be a process, wherein, a person having necessary qualification, expresses his choice or preference or opinion out of his own free will through an instrument known as ballot or show of hands to take or to do one thing or another. Thus, the most important factor is, expression of choice or preference and putting a seal or mark on a ballot, which is a mode of such expression.

It is well settled by catena of decisions, law pertaining to elections depends upon statutory provision and right to vote, elect or to be elected depends upon statutory rights. Reference may be made to decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer & Ors., AIR 1952 SC 64, S. Narayanaswami Vs. G. Pannerselvam & Ors., (1972) 3 SCC 717 and C. Narayaswami Vs. C.K. Jaffer Sharief & Ors., 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 170. However, in the case of People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, Justice Venkatarama Reddi, J. (as His Lordship then was), while considering the Right to Vote, held it to be a constitutional right though not a fundamental right, but right to make choice by means of ballot to be part of freedom of expression. It was held that casting of vote in favour of one or the other candidate tantamounts to expression of his opinion and exercise of voting right marks the accomplishment of freedom of expression of the voter. Speaking for himself in paragraph 97 of the reports, it is observed as under.

"In Jyoti Basu Vs. Debi Ghosal, this Court again pointed out in no uncertain terms that: (SCC p.696, para 8)

"8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple a statutory right."

With great reverence to the eminent Judges, I would like to clarify that the right to vote, if not a fundamental right, is certainly a constitutional right. The right originates from the Constitution and in accordance with the constitutional mandate contained in Article 326, the right has been shaped by the statute, namely, R.P. Act. That, in my understanding, is the correct legal position as regards the nature of the right to vote in elections to the House of people and Legislative Assemblies. It is not very accurate to describe it as a statutory right, pure and simple. Even with this clarification, the argument of the learned Solicitor General that the right to vote not being a fundamental right, the information which at best facilitates meaningful exercise of that right cannot be read as an integral part of any fundamental right, remains to be squarely met. Here, a distinction has to be drawn between the conferment of the right to vote on fulfillment of requisite criteria and the culmination of that right in the final act of expressing choice towards a particular candidate by means of ballot. Though the initial right cannot be placed on the pedestal of a fundamental right, but, at the stage when the voter goes to the polling booth and casts his vote, his freedom to express arises. The casting of vote in favour of one or the other candidate tantamounts to expression of his opinion and preference and that final stage in the exercise of voting right marks the accomplishment of freedom of expression of the voter. That is where Article 19(1)(a) is attracted. Freedom of voting as distinct from right to vote is thus a species of freedom of expression and therefore carries with it the auxiliary and complementary rights such as right to secure information about the candidate which are conducive to the freedom. None of the decisions of this Court wherein the proposition that the right to vote is a pure and simple statutory right was declared and reiterated, considered the question whether the citizen's freedom of expression is or is not involved when a citizen entitled to vote casts his vote in favour of one or the other candidate. The issues that arose in Ponnuswami's case and various cases cited by the learned Solicitor-General fall broadly within the realm of procedural or remedial aspects of challenging the election or the nomination of a candidate. None of these decisions, in my view, go counter to the proposition accepted by us that the fundamental right of freedom of expression sets in when a voter actually casts his vote. I, therefore, find no merit in the submission made by the learned Solicitor General that these writ petitions have to be referred to a larger bench in view of the apparent conflict. As already stated, the factual matrix and legal issues involved in those cases were different and the view, we are taking, does not go counter to the actual ratio of the said decisions rendered by the eminent Judges of this Court."

It is, thus, clear that right to vote is statutory right and once the voter goes to actually cast his vote, fundamental right of freedom set in.

Admittedly, in the case in hand, procedure to be followed in a meeting of 'No Confidence' is governed by the Rules of 1966. It is imperative that procedure prescribed thereunder has to be strictly followed. In the celebrated case of Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 233, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in respect of observance of election rules has held as under.

"It is argued with great insistence that as the object of the Election Rules is to discover the intention of the majority of the voters in the choice of a representative, if an elector has shown a clear intention to vote for a particular candidate, that must be taken into account under Section 100 (2) (c), even though the vote might be bad for non-compliance with the formalities. But, when the law prescribes that the intention should be expressed in a particular manner, it can be taken into account only if it is so expressed. An intention not duly expressed is, in a court of law, in the same position as an intention not expressed at all."

The above view was again reiterated and followed in the case of Era Sezhiyan Vs. T.R. Balu & Ors., 1990 (Supp.) SCC 322.

In view of the specific provisions contained in Rule of 1966 in respect of form of ballot paper and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the ballot paper used in the meeting of 'No Confidence' and mode and manner prescribed for marking the ballot by the electors participating in the meeting, cannot be said to be in conformity of the Rules of 1966 and, thus, not only the process adopted in the meeting by the Presiding Officer is illegal, but the matter itself is rendered illegal.

At this stage, relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mange Ram Vs. District Panchayat Raj Officer/Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur & Ors., AIR 1987 All. 266, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents sought to argue that voting does not mean only putting a mark on the ballot paper, but it also means not putting a mark on the ballot paper and even a blank ballot paper when put into the ballot box, amounts to voting and, thus, in the case in hand, if the electors participating in the meeting for No Confidence, were asked not to put any mark on the ballot paper, if they intended to vote against the motion, the same will not render the meeting illegal.

In our considered opinion, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the Full Bench decision is totally misfounded. Before the Full Bench, the question for interpretation was with respect to whether 'present and voting' means only present and casting valid vote and not invalid votes. The view taken by a Division Bench in the case of Roop Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P., 1984 All. LJ 879 that it is only the valid votes that should count, was doubted by another Division Bench and that is how the matter came to be referred to Full Bench. The question before the Full Bench was related to the meaning and scope of clause 5(viii) of Rule 33-B of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 relating to removal of elected Pradhan. The process of holding a meeting of 'No Confidence' and voting thereon, in case of a Pradhan under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, is governed by U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. Rule 33-B(v) specifically provides that any member participating in the meeting, if he so wishes, makes a mark on the ballot paper and if he wishes to vote against the motion, he shall make no mark on the ballot paper. The relevant rule is quoted hereunder.

"(v) The polling compartment to be provided at the place of Polling will be screened from observation. The member shall enter the same and if he wishes to vote for the motion for the removal, he shall make a mark on the ballot paper with the rubber stamp supplied by the Presiding Officer and if he wishes to vote against the motion he shall make no mark on the ballot paper. He shall then fold the ballot paper and put it into the ballot box through the slit provided for the purpose. The ballot box shall be kept in view of the Presiding Officer."

The aforesaid Rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act is directly in contrast with the procedure prescribed for voting under the Rules of 1966 applicable in the case in hand. Rule 7(2) of Rules of 1966 specifically provides that the member shall put a (tick) "√" or (cross) "X" on the mark ballot paper against the word "Yes" or "No" according as he is in favour or against the motion of 'No Confidence' respectively. The form of ballot paper to be provided is also prescribed in Rule 5, whereas Panchayat Raj Rules did not contain any provision prescribing the form of the ballot paper. Thus, the observation made by the Full Bench in a motion of No Confidence against the elected Pradhan under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act has no application to the facts of the present case, which is under U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam.

The other argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that procedure prescribed for voting is a procedural law and not a substantial law and, thus, does not confer any right. This argument has been based on certain observation made in the Full Bench in the case of Vikas Trivedi (supra). However, from a reading the Full Bench judgment, it does not cull out procedure prescribed is a procedural law and not substantial. The Full Bench was considering the provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) prescribing of giving notice by Collector, in prescribed form along with complete annexures and requirement of supplying complete motion containing the signatures of all the members.

The Full Bench after considering the matter in detail, answered the questions in paragraph 79 of the reports, as under.

"79. Our answers to the questions referred including the question No.1, which has been re-framed by us, are as follows:-

(i)The requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3)(ii) in the prescribed form as required by Rule 2 and Form-2 is held not to be mandatory and on substantial compliance of the provisions the proceeding shall not be vitiated. Whether there has been substantial compliance of the said provisions, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(ii)The observation of the Division Bench in Ram Nath Tripathi's case (supra) that notice in prescribed form along with its annexures in complete formate is mandatory does not lay down the correct law. The judgment in Smt. Krishna Jaiswal's case (supra) lays down the correct law and is approved.

(iii)The notice sent by the Collector convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence cannot be invalidated on the ground that copy of the notice with the name of the person who had signed the written notice of intention, was not sent along with the notice. When proposed motion of no confidence is signed by the requisite members, the notice convening the meeting cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that some pages of the proposed motion containing signatures of some members only were sent along with the notice. "

From a careful reading of the Full Bench judgment, we do not find any ratio being laid down to support the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. On the contrary, in paragraph 77, it has been observed by Full Bench as under.

"77. Thus substantial compliance shall not vitiate the proceeding of no confidence motion cannot be read as requirement of not following the prescribed procedure in the rules."

The issue in this petition in respect of procedure to be followed for conducting and voting in a meeting of no confidence was not an issue for consideration before the Full Bench in the case of Vikas Trivedi (supra).

In any view of the matter, this issue stands considered by following observation made by Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra).

"We are not in the province of substantive rights but procedural rights statutorily regulated. Sometimes processual protections are too precious to be negotiable, temporised with or whittled down."

Under the facts and reasons and the law discussed above, it is evidently clear that the meeting of 'No Confidence' is rendered illegal being in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing procedure for holding such meeting and, thus, the result of the said meeting also cannot be given effect to.

As a result, the writ petition stands allowed.

The proceedings of the impugned meeting of 'No Confidence' of Kshettra Panchayat, Marehra, District Etah dated 04.09.2017 and the result of the voting held in the said meeting declared on 25.09.2017 stand quashed. Consequences to follow.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

May 1st ,2018

VKS