SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether a notice of no-confidence in the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti envisaged by S.32 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961, can be validly considered in a meeting held on a holiday - is the somewhat ticklish question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of a Division Bench judgment in Kamlesh Roy V/s. Rudra Narain Rai AIR 1981 Pat 264 and a conflict of precedent within this Court on the point.

2. The facts are undisputed and lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 3 Baidyanath Prasad was elected the Pramukh of Belsand Panchayat Samiti some time the year 1979. A motion expressing want of confidence was proposed against him and notice requisitioning meeting of the members of the respondent Samiti signed by more than the requisite number of members was made over to the said respondent on the March, 1983, who, however, refused to receive the requisition. Consequently the, said requisition was presented to the Block Development Officer-Ex Officio Secretary of the Samiti, who forwarded the same to respondent No. 3 with an endorsement to call a special meeting for considering the no-confidence motion. On behalf of the two writ petitioners it has been averred that respondent No. 3 nevertheless paid no heed to the said requisition and in accordance with R.7 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1963, respondent No. 5 called a meeting of all the members of the respondent Samiti on the 27th of March, 1983, at 1 P. M for considering the no-confidence motion under a notice issued by him in this behalf on the 25th of March, 1983. The writ petitioners have averrred that because the motion was directed against respondent No. 3, the Pramukh of the Samiti, petitioner No. 1 Mohammad Zainul Abedin, who was the Up-Pramukh of the said Samiti, acted as the Chairman of the said meeting which was attended by 33 members constituting more than two-thirds of the strength of the total members of the Samiti, and after a deliberation of over two hours the said motion was unanimously carried. Thereafter respondent No. 5 who was unanimously carried. Thereafter respondent No. 5 who was present at the meeting affixed the resolution expressing want of confidence in respondent No. 3 on the Notice Board of the respondent Samiti (Annexure 2 to the petition).

3. The primary grievance of the writ petitioners is that the respondent State of Bihar acting under S.68 of the Act proceeded to cancel the resolution aforesaid on the ground that the meeting had been held on the 27th of March, 1983, which was a Sunday and under R.3 no such meeting can be held on a holiday and further that the holding of the requisitioned meeting had earlier been stayed under the orders of the State Government passed on the 25th of March, 1983, itself.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 it has been averred that the Director-Cum-Additional Secretary (respondent No. 2) by his office letter dated the 24th of March, 1983, had issued an order communicating the decision of the Government to postpone the published meeting of no-confidence against the Pramukh but despite the said decision duly communicated the meeting was nevertheless sought to be held on the 27th of March, 1983, in which a vote of no-confidence was passed. It is the case that the said meeting was a deliberate disobedience of the order of the State Government and equally flagrant violation of R.3, which forbids the holding of a meeting on a holiday. It is then the claim that the State Government is empowered under S.68 to cancel any resolution by the Panchayat Samiti and in the present case the said resolution being in violation of the statutory provisions has been rightly set aside.

5. Now the basic, if not the solitary, argument raised by learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners is that R.3 which prescribes that the meeting of the Samit