The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of waiver and de facto doctrine in determining the legality of the no confidence motion and election proceedings.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7, 9, 12, 16, 20 and 23 as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22. This writ petition is being finally heard and decided at this stage itself at the instance of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing proceedings of motion dated 3.8.2009 (Annexure-3) by which no confidence motion was passed against the petitioners who were respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Bodh Gaya and also for quashing letter No. Na. Ni. 50-24/2009-1425 dated 11.8.2009 (Annexure-7) issued by the Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar and forwarded to the District Magistrate-cum-District Returning Officer, Gaya Municipality wherein it was stated that the election of the vacant posts of Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Bodh Gaya was scheduled to take place on 25.8.2009.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned orders and states that requisition was made by 11 out of 19 members of the aforesaid Nagar Panchayat on 22.7.2009 (Annexure-1), whereafter notice dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure-2) was issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bodh Gaya calling for no confidence motion to be held on 3.8.2009 without mentioning the ground on which the requisition was made. It is also stated that on 3.8.2009 (Annexure-3) no confidence motion was passed against petitioner no. 1 in which 11 members of the Nagar Panchayat supported the motion and remaining 8 opposed it. Similarly, no confidence was passed against petitioner no. 2 in which 12 members supported the motion and remaining 7 opposed it.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claims that no confidence motion was a nullity as the notice dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure-2) was issued without the legal requirements of mentioning the grounds/allegations made against the petitioners. He further relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court dated 25.6.2010 passed in L.P.A. No. 840 of 2010 (Sanjay Kumar vs. Asha Devi & Others) in which it was held as follows:

"11. So far as the respondent-writ petitioner in this appeal is concerned, she has admittedly not contested the subsequent election and, hence, the issue narrows down to testing whether by not abstaining herself from the subsequent meeting and by exercising her right to vote she has committed some wrong act for which she must be penalized and deprived from the fruits of a lawful finding in her favour that her removal was illegal and the no confidence motion was against law. Acquiescence or waiver must be based upon deliberate acts which can show that the person concerned has consciously given up his rights and has opted for a course of action which is not consistent with his or her earlier claims. By simply opting to participate in a subsequent meeting of the Nagar Parishad which was not stayed by this Court in spite of prayer, the writ petitioner, in our considered opinion, has merely acted in accordance with law to exercise her right of voting in a meeting which was being held in spite of pendency of the writ petition. Such an action, in our opinion, alone would not be sufficient to hold that the writ petitioner had done something to disentitle herself from the benefit of restoration to the office from which she was illegally removed."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that reliance placed by the contesting respondents upon order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No. 733 of 2010 (Vinay Kumar "Pappu" @ Binay Kumar "Pappu" & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)* is not legal and proper as the said judgment has been challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16578 of 2010 in which the Supreme Court has directed issuance of notice vide order dated 31.5.2010 and the matter is still pending. The claim of the petitioners is