The requirement of seven clear days notice for a special meeting to consider a no confidence motion is mandatory, and any decision taken in breach of the court's order would be non-est.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the notice dated 20-6-2003 issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samitee, Kutumba whereby a meeting of the Panchayat Samitee was convened on 26-6-2003 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as member of the Panchayat Samittee, Kutumba (hereinafter referred to as the Samitee) and subsequently elected as its Parmukh. Certain members of the Samitee wrote to the petitioner to convene a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion. A copy of the said requisition was also sent to the Block Development Officer, Kutumba who happens to be the Executive Officer of the Samitee. He in turn wrote to the petitioner to convene a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion. Ultimately the Executive Officer gave notice (Annexure-9) of the special meeting to be held on 26-6-2003 to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner . Said notice was given on 20-6-2003. In this application prayer of the petitioner is to quash this notice.

3. It is relevant to state in the writ application petitioner has stated that he was elected as Parmukh on 18-6-2001 and within a period of two years requisition was made to consider the motion of no confidence which is in the teeth of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6-5-2002 passed in the case of Smt. Shyama Devi V/s. The State of Bihar, (2002) 2 Pat LJR 765). It is common ground that the petitioner was elected as Parmukh on 10-6-2001 and according to the petitioner the date 18-6-2001 is an inadvertent error whereas according to the respondents same has been purposely stated to mislead the Court and hence the writ application deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that the petitioner having not approached this Court with clean hand and stated untrue fact to mislead this Court, the writ application deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Dr. Sadanahd Jha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the answering respondents are reading more than what deserves to be read in inadvertent error in the petition that the petitioner was elected on 18-6-2001 instead of 10-6-2001 as Parmukh. In my opinion the error in the application is not of such nature which disentitles the petitioner the relief claimed in the present application on this ground. Hence I overrule this submission of Mr. Singh.

5. In support of the application Dr. Jha has raised several points but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I deem it inexpedient to refer to all the submissions of Dr. Jha. Dr. Jha contends that under Sec. 44(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)seven clear days notice of a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence is required to be given and in the present case undisputedly the notice was given on 20-6-2003 fixing 26-6-2003 as the date of special meeting, which does not fulfill the requirement of seven clear days notice. Mr. Singh however submits that a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion is to be held within 15 days from the date of receipt of such request under Sec. 44(3) of the Act and when this provision is harmoniously construed with Sec. 44(4) of the Act, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad as it had not given seven clear days notice of the special meeting. He highlights that Sec. 44(3) of the Act mandates holding of the special meeting within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the request and in case the meeting instead of being convened on 26-6-2003 to any later date the same should not have within 15 days as required under Section 44(3) of the Act and in order to avoid that 26-6-2003 was the date fixed for the meeting.

6. Rival submission necessitates examinat