Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the communication dated 7.11.2002 (Annexure-8) of the Secretary, Rural Development Department addressed to the District Magistrate, Jehanabad in which it has been observed that the no-confidence motion passed against respondent no.5 is illegal and she will continue as Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Jehanabad.

2. The facts necessary for the decision of the present writ application are that the petitioner is an elected member of Jehanabad Panchayat Samiti whereas respondent no.5 Rekha Devi happens to be its Pramukh and a special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against respondent no.5 was held on 28.9.2002 in which out of the total number of the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti i.e. 20, 19 members including respondent no. 5 were present. According to the petitioner himself out of 19 members present in the meeting 14 took part in the voting and 5 abstained from the voting and out of 14 members who voted in the special meeting, 7 voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and 7 against the motion. According to the petitioner, in case of equality of votes, the Up-Pramukh who was presiding the meeting, gave the casting vote in favour of no-confidence motion and accordingly, the motion of no-confidence was passed on 28.9.2002 by majority. When this fact came to the notice of the Secretary of the Rural Development Department, he by the impugned order, held that the motion of no-confidence passed against respondent no.5 is not in accordance with law and accordingly, directed that respondent no. 5 shall continue as the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti.

3. Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the motion of no-confidence carried out against respondent no.5, cannot be tinkered by the Secretary who under the scheme of the Act, has no authority to interfere with the motion. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Hare Ram Acharya Vs. The State of Bihar and ors. [2002 (4) PUR 640] and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment:

"7. xxx It is thus to be seen that the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Officer have no role to play in calling a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and in the legislative scheme a requisition for summoning a special meeting of the Samiti is to be made directly to the Pramukh. In case the Pramukh does not call the meeting, being disinclined to face a vote of no-confidence, as it is seen in a number of cases, the Up Pramukh may call the meeting and if he too does not oblige then it is open to the requisite number of members (one-third of the total number of members of the Samiti) to themselves fix the date of the meeting and require the Executive Officer (the B.D.O.) to give notice of the meeting to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. In that situation, unless there is any other legal bar, the Block Development Officer will be legally obliged to act upon the requisition, convene the meeting on the date fixed by the requisite number of members, give notice of the meeting to the members and take all actions as may be necessary for convening the meeting. He will discharge his duty under the Act as the Executive Officer of the Samiti without asking for or following the directions of his superiors in the district administration. The Samity is thus to act on its own as a truly democratic body on the ground level and its members are not to view themselves as dependent upon the District Magistrate or the Subdivisional Officer for running the affair of the Samity."

Underlining by me Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel No. VI appears on behalf of the State whereas respondent no.5 is represented by Mr. Binod Shankar Tiwary.

4 Mr. Tiwary appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5, however, contends that the State Government has the power to call