Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8607-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1177 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Pnachayat Raj U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Ram Raj, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.5 is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner is a member of Kshetra Panchayat who challenges the minutes of meeting held on 11.11.2024. The only contention raised before us is that the quorum was not complete as out of 81 members only 35 members were present and all decisions were taken within 20 minutes. 4. As regard quorum, the Standing Counsel has placed before us Rule 9(2) of U.P. Zila Panchayat (Conduct of Proceedings) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1962"), according to which except as provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1962 the quorum necessary for the transaction of any business shall be one-third of the total number of members for the time being of the Zila Panchayat. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1962, the quorum necessary for the transaction of business, which is required to be transacted by a special resolution, shall be one-half of the total number of members for the time being of the Zila Panchayat. The sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1962 says that if a meeting is adjourned or further adjourned for want of the quorum, no quorum shall be necessary for the adjourned or further adjourned meeting for the disposal of the postponed business. In this case, initially the meeting was scheduled for 24.10.2024 but it was adjourned, therefore, in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1962, sub-rule (1) and (2) thereof shall not apply. As regard the contention that the entire meeting took only 20 minutes, this is not a matter to be seen under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially where only one of the members has come forward. 5 We, accordingly, decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter with liberty, however, to pursue other remedies permissible under law, if there is a cause. Moreover, the counsel could not point out as to any resolution which was passed in the said meeting detrimental to the larger public interest. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 11.2.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench