1. This is a petition where an Adhyaksha of a Zila Parishad has been bundled out of his office on a motion of no confidence. The motion of no confidence was carried at a meeting held on 27-11-2001, The requisition to call this meeting is dated 8 November, 2001. As this requisition is the genesis of the issues which were debated on the writ petition and on the present Letters Patent Appeal, it would be best that this requisition dated 8 November, 2001, Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal be reproduced : lsok esa] *************** LOCAL LANGUEGE ****************

2. On the receipt of this requisition, the District Magistrate convened a meeting amongst the members of the Zila Parishad. The meeting was set for 27th November, 2001. The communication of the Executive Officer/District Magistrate, Arrah to the members of the Zila Parishad, which is otherwise Annexure-3 to the appeal, is also relevant and is reproduced : *************** LOCAL LANGUEGE ****************

3. The result of the meeting which became, as termed, a motion of no confidence is recorded by the Chief Executive Officer on 27 November, 2001 (Annexure-4 to the appeal) and this is also reproduced : *************** LOCAL LANGUEGE ****************

4. The motion of no confidence was carried. The result was Uday Shankar Singh, the writ petitioner, had to leave his office as Adhyaksha, Zila Parishad. He filed a writ petition CWJC No. 16423 of 2001 : Uday Shankar Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.. This Court is not going into another aspect that previously another motion of no confidence was brought and it was faulted on a technicality that the requisition for the meeting instead of being given to the Adhyakshya had been delivered to the Upadhyaksha. This aspect is not relevant to the matter being considered by the Court. But, it could be said that it was an exercise on a motion which failed.

5. Suffice it to say that a motion of no confidence which was carried by the requisition of 8 November, 2001, left a vacancy in the office with the result that during December, 200.1 an election was held to choose another Adhyaksha. In that election Hakim Prasad, respondent No. 5 was declared elected. It needs to be noticed that the election which took place as a consequence of this motion of no confidence, rested on the requisition of 8 November, 2001. If the requisition and the motion of no confidence can stand the scrutiny of law as it governs democracy under the Constitution and the law, then the consequential election will hold.

6. A motion of no confidence must on a cause. Its success or failure is the result of that cause.

7. A bare reading of the requisition makes it clear to the naked eye that the requisition demands a meeting for a motion of no confidence but mentions nothing as to what may be the situation on which a meeting for a motion of no confidence was being called. The person against whom the motion of no confidence was being called was not made aware of what exactly he had done to loose his office.

8. Noticing the scheme of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 , four public offices are mentioned to preside over forums for local self Government. These are Mukhiya of the Panchayat, Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti and Sarpanch of the Gram Katchahry, the Adhayaksh of the Zila Parishad. At present the Court is not going into the question which engaged the attention of the advocate General, Bihar whether there be any power in the State of Bihar to remove these elected representatives especially regard being had to the aspect that local self Government is now part of the fabric of the Constitution of India. It is another matter that the learned Advocate General Bihar has indicated that he will bring this matter to the notice of the Government.

9. On the other hand the Court is concerned that should the elected representatives be bundled out of the offices to which they have been elected for the asking without being told as to what exactly be their fault to loose thei