The court emphasized the requirement for the majority of elected members attending the special meeting to pass a resolution for removal, rather than the majority of the total number of elected members.

Barin Ghosh, J.

1. A requisition was submitted to the petitioner, who was the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. The requisitionists requested the petitioner to convene a meeting to remove the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and also to remove the Up-Pramukh. The petitioner did not issued the notice convening such meeting. The requisitionists then approached the Executive Officer who convened such a meeting. The first ground of challenge of holding of this meeting pursuant to the said notice is that the reasons for the motion had not been indicated in the notice.

2. It is true, as will appear from a bare perusal of the notice, that the reasons in support of the motion had not been indicated in the notice. The notice also does not say that a copy of the requisition is being annexed with the notice. Therefore, It is true that the notice did not convey the reasons. It appears to be the legislative mandate that such reasons must accompany the notice. However, the petitioners cannot defeat the notice nor can have the same declared invalid for the notice did not convey the reasons in support thereof inasmuch as the object of giving reasons is to enable the members to know why the motion is being proposed and the petitioners having had received the original requisition containing full reasons were made aware of the same, and accordingly they did not suffer at all.

3. It is claimed that the Up-Pramukh was at that time away for fixation of the marriage of his daughter. It has not been stated anywhere in the body of the petition that before leaving, the Up-Pramukh informed the Panchayat Samiti that he will not be available for the period in question.

4. A look at Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 44 of the Act would show that it is obligatory on the part of the Up-Pramukh, upon failure on the part of the Pramukh to convene a meeting in terms of the requisition of the requisitionists, to direct the Executive Officer to give notice convening such meeting. By making himself scarce, the Up-Pramukh did not discharge his such obligation. In the event Up-Pramukh had discharged his obligation in terms of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 44 of the Act, he could have had acquired knowledge of the reasons why the motions were proposed to be considered at a special meeting to be convened. By his inaction he, therefore, prevented himself from knowing the reasons and it would not be appropriate to permit him to take advantage of his own wrong.

5. It has been submitted that at the meeting out of 26 members, 13 voted in support of the motion, but it was shown that 14 had supported the motion, and this was done by taking into account the vote of the Presiding Member of the meeting. It was contended that the Presiding Member could cast his vote only in the event of a tie. It was submitted that in such circumstances only 13 out of 26 elected members voted in support of the resolutions. It was contended that in terms of sec. 43 of the Act, in order to remove a Pramukh and a Up-Pramukh, majority of the total number of elected members is necessary. It was submitted that 13 was not a majority amongst 26 elected members.

6. A look at Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 43 of the Act would make it abundantly clear that a Pramukh as well as a Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have vacated their office forthwith a resolution expressing want of confidence in them is passed by majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for that purpose, and accordingly what is required is the mandate of the majority of the elected members, who were present at the meeting specially convened for that purpose. Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 44 makes it abundantly clear that in order to transact business of any meeting, whether an ordinary meeting or a special meeting, the quorum required is 50% of the members entitled to attend the meeting. When Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 43 of the Act requires that the resolution is to be passed by the elected members at a s