Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the notice dated 11.12.2008 as also the requisition on the basis of which the said notice has been issued for considering no confidence motion against him as the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti.

3. The first ground raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice is contrary to Section 46 (4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 , since the notice dated 11.12.2008 had fixed the date for convening the special meeting on 18.12.2008 and thus no clear seven days notice has-been given. The second ground raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons/charges mentioned in the requisition and the notice are vague and non-specific and thus the same is contrary to Section 44 (3) (v) of the said Act.

4. So far as the second ground is concerned this Court, on a consideration of the various reasons/charges mentioned in the notice and requisition, is not in agreement with the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that these reasons/charges are with respect to the discussion which is to take place in th