1. The two petitioners, in this writ petition, were elected as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Bikramganj Panchayat Samiti, District-Rohtas. They challenged the validity of no confidence motion as passed against them on 22.8.2009 (Annexure-10). The members eligible to vote in the Panchayat Samiti are sixteen and on that fateful date, twelve were present and all of them voted against the petitioners. Thus 75% of the members voted in favour of no confidence against the two petitioners. The challenge to the said proceeding is primarily on two grounds, firstly, that the said meeting is in contravention of Section 44(3)(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and is thus liable to be set aside having been called within one year of rejection of no confidence motion and secondly that the meeting was not fixed within fifteen days of the requisition and there was no clear seven days notice of the date fixed for the meeting. Thus there was violation of Section 44(3)(i) and Section 46(4) of the Act. The meeting was thus invalidly called.

2. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. The facts are not in dispute. On 28.7.2008 (Annexure-2) in a meeting specially requisitioned, vote of no confidence was passed against the two petitioners by eight members voting in favour of no confidence and six members voting against no confidence. As noted earlier, total strength of eligible voters for this purpose being sixteen, 50% voted against the petitioners and about 35% in favour of the petitioners. Upon this, resolution being sent to the State Election Commission for holding fresh election of Pramukh and Up- Pramukh, the Election Commission on 12.8.2008 held that the petitioners would not be deemed to have suffered disqualification as consequence of no confidence motion in terms of Section 44(3)(i) of the Act, inasmuch as, the membership of the house was sixteen and only eight had voted in favour of no confidence, which was 50% but not more than 50%. Upon this declaration by the State Election Commission, on 14.8.2008, petitioners alleged that they were reinstated and continued to function as such.

4. On 31.7.2009, a fresh requisition was made for considering no confidence motion against the two petitioners. It was addressed to the Pramukh and copy thereof was marked to the Executive Officer, who is the Block Development Officer. The requisition is Annexure-1. On the same day i.e. 31.7.2009, as the copy of requisition was also marked to the Executive Officer, he noted in the file (Annexure-6) that requisition had been sent to the Pramukh directly, a copy was marked to the Executive Officer and as such the copy, as marked to the Executive Officer, is being sent to the Pramukh by this file and appropriate decision to call a meeting, may be taken immediately. The file noting is dated 31.7.2009. Petitioners alleged with reference to Annexure-13 that, in fact, this file was received by the Pramukh (Petitioner no.1) on 7.8,2009. It is not in dispute that Pramukh did not fix the date for meeting inspite of having received the said requisition on 7.8.2009. Thus, admittedly, the Executive Officer then fixed 22.8.2009, as the date for consideration of no confidence motion, by his memo dated 14.8.2009 (Annexure-7). This memo was served on all members on 15.8.2009. Two members were served on 17/18.8.209 with the said notice. It is not in dispute that there is no objection rather they have voted in favour of no confidence motion as against the petitioners on the fateful day. The said meeting was held on 22.8.2009 (Annexure-10) wherein out of total members eligible to vote being sixteen, twelve voted in favour of no confidence motion and four persons abstained, which includes the two petitioners as well.

5. On these facts, it is first submitted that the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion has been held in violation of Section 44(3)(iii) i.e. within one year from the date of rejectio