Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.

1. This writ application was initially filed to quash the notice dated 23.9.2003 (Annexure-1) whereby the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, Gurua had issued notice for convening the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner. During the pendency of the application, no confidence motion has been carried out against the petitioner. By way of amendment, the prayer is to quash the resolution dated 30.9.2003 of the Panchayat Samiti carried out the motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Gurua Panchayat Samiti on 12th of June, 2001. The Executive Officer of the said Samiti issued notice dated 23.9.2003 informing the members of the Panchayat Samiti that a meeting shall be held on 30th of September, 2003 to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the same by filing the present writ application but during the pendency of the application, the meeting was held and a no confidence motion has been carried out against the petitioner.

3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised several points to assail the notice and the resolution of no confidence motion passed against the petitioner but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I deem it inexpedient either to incorporate or answer the same. Mr. Singh contends that seven clear days notice was not given for transacting the business of motion of no confidence as required under Sec. 44(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and the notice being invalid, resolution taken on such a date shall be ipso facto, illegal. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 20th of November, 2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5326 of 2003 (Arun Kumar Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others.) My attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment:

"Having answered this, the next question which falls for determination is as to how the period of seven clear days notice is to be calculated. It is well settled that when a statute provides for stated period of notice to be given, this requirement must be met, otherwise the meeting will be invalid. In the present case, sec. 44 (4) of the Act had in no uncertain term provided for seven clear days notice which would obviously mean that the notice shall be exclusive of the day on which it is issued and of the meeting. Applying the aforesaid principle, I am of the opinion that the notice to hold the meeting is invalid in the eye of law as seven clear days notice was not given."

4. Mr. A.P. Sinha, Standing Counsel X appears on behalf of the State and its functionary, Mr. Mahendra Thakur appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 13, 17 to 21. In spite of service of notice on other respondents, nobody has chosen to appear on their behalf.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that no confidence motion passed against the petitioner is valid and in accordance with law, which does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

6. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. The notice for holding the meeting on 30.9.2003 was issued on 23rd September, 2003. Thus seven clear days notice was not given to hold the meeting. This itself vitiates the notice. Consequently, the business transacted on 30th of September, 2003 is not in accordance with law. Resultantly the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner is non-est in the eye of law, which cannot be allowed to stand.

7. Quashing of resolution of the no confidence motion shall not stand in the way of the members to bring fresh motion against the petitioner in accordance with law.

8. In the result, this application i