Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the appearing respondents, learned Counsel for the State Election Commission and learned Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure- 3) of the no-confidence motion brought against him including the resolution of no-confidence passed therein and for other consequential orders.

3. The stand of the petitioner is that an undated requisition, which according to the petitioner was addressed only to the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Begusarai, was made in which subsequently by forgery and manipulation the name of the Pramukh was inserted above that of the Block Development Officer and further manipulation regarding fixing the date of the meeting on 21.7.2008 was also made. It is further alleged that the said requisition was placed before the Executive Officer on 11.7.2008 who himself fixed the date on 11.7.2008 and issued the notices (Annexure-1 series) fixing the date for considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner-Pramukh on 21.7.2008. Thereafter a meeting was convened on the said date. In the said meeting, the no-confidence motion was passed by 11 to 10 votes. It is alleged that the said result was brought about by tampering the members to vote in support of the no-confidence motion by the Executive Officer, in respect of which on the same date eleven members including the Up-Pramukh made their physical Parade before the District Magistrate, Begusarai and made him aware of the illegality and irregularity committed by the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. Thereafter enquiry was directed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai to be made by the Deputy Development Commissioner. In his report dated 26.7.2008, the Deputy Development Commissioner made certain adverse observations against the action of the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. It is further stated that the 11 directly elected members including the Up-Pramukh had also made a representation before the State Election Commission.

4. Learned Counsel also refers to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer in which the notes put up by the Executive Officer with respect to the requisition for no-confidence motion have also been annexed as Annexure -A which shows that the petitioner as the Pramukh has approved the same on 14.7.2008. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the said notes were never put up before the petitioner nor the petitioner had ever signed any such notes and the signature of the petitioner is not to be found in the same notes which are annexed as Annexure- 2 to the writ petition whereas the same is found in Annexure- A to the counter affidavit sworn by the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. It is alleged that the same is a forgery. It is further contended that even if for the sake of argument the same is assumed to be the signature of the petitioner made on 14.7.2008 then the Executive Officer will have much to answer as to how even before the petitioner-Pramukh had fixed the date he had issued notice dated 11.7.2008 to the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat Samiti for convening the no-confidence motion on 21.7.2008. The same according to learned Counsel clearly shows the manipulative role played by the Block Development Officer and his attempt at tampering with the documents even while the matter is pending before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that the notice itself does not contain reasons/charges on the basis of which the no-confidence motion is to be considered and the same is thus in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 .

6. Mr. Shri Prakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents does not seriously