Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.

1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.

2. Both the writ applications pertain to the same set of transactions in relation to No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh of Chanan Panchayat Samiti passed in special meeting dated 14.7.2008 and, accordingly, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The writ petitioners, who are elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, in C.W.J.C. No. 11518/2008 seek quashing of the direction/communication of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai to the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Chanan Panchayat Samiti by letter No. 1874 dated 20.7.2008 (Annexure-7) staying the decision of the Chanan Panchayat Samiti dated 14.7.2008, by which No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh had been passed and further to hold that the decision of the said Panchayat Samiti dated 14.7.2008 is legal and for consequential reliefs.

4. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12005/2008 is the Pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti and seeks quashing of letter No. 802 dated 5.7.2008 (Annexure-2) issued by the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Chanan Panchayat Samiti, by which notices have been issued upon the petitioner and other directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti for holding the special meeting to discuss No Confidence motion against the petitioner on 14.7.2008, and further for not giving effect to the decision taken on 14.7.2008 in the said special meeting pursuant to the said notice and also for quashing the part of the order dated 20.7.2008 (Annexure-7) issued by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai by which direction has been given to the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Chanan Panchayat Samiti to see that the next date is fixed for special meeting on point of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and for consequential reliefs.

5. The short facts relevant for the decision in the present matters are that a requisition is said to have been made on 20.6.2008 for convening a special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh, Pinki Kumari. It is stated that the said requisition was circulated to all the members and sent to the Pramukh on the same day, which was refused to be received by the Pramukh as reported by the Peon which reports are annexed as Annexures 1 and 1/1 to the writ petition. Thereafter by letter dated 21.6.2008 (Annexure-2) of the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, the same was sent to the Pramukh by registered post in which it was mentioned that she had refused to accept the requisition sent to her along with the original file on 20.6.2008 as per the report of the peon and accordingly, the said requisition along with the photo copy of the original file was being sent for fixing a date for the special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion against her. The said letter sent through registered post is admitted to have been received by the Pramukh, Pinki Kumari on 27.6.2008.

6. Thereafter on 4.7.2008, the Pramukh fixed the date for the meeting on 8.7.2008. Finding the said date as being contrary to the mandatory requirement of 7 days clear notice under the Act, the Executive Officer approached the Up-Pramukh on 5.7.2008 to fix the date of the meeting on 14.7.2008 and the information in this regard was sent by the Executive Officer to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lakhisarai and the S.D.O., Lakhisarai also. Pursuant to the said notice, the special meeting was held on 14.7.2008 in which 8 out of total 14 directly elected members of Panchayat Samiti participated and voted and unanimously passed the No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh.

7. In the meantime, the Pramukh had written to the District Magistrate on 11th July, 2008 that at the time of No Confidence Motion on 14.7.2008, the Executive Officer was acting politically and against the Pramukh. The Sub-divisional Officer gave his report to the District Magistrate by his letter dated 1