The petitioner was the Chairman of the Saran Zila Parishad at Chapra. She has lost in the vote of confidence. She challenges the same.

2. Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the private-respondents, learned counsels for the Zila Parishad and the State and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. The private-respondents consist of Upahyaksh and other members of the Zila Parishad who had requisitioned the special meeting for consideration of no confidence against the petitioner.

4. Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition has raised principally two issues. Firstly, he submits that no 7 clear days notice had been issued by the Chief Executive Officer fixing date for special meeting and, as such, the notice was bad and the notice being bad the proceedings taken pursuant thereto cannot be sustained. Secondly, he submits that the special meeting in which no confidence motion was passed was presided by the Upadhyaksh and in presence of the Deputy Development Commissioner (D.D.C.) and was not presided by or the voting was not conducted by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector and as such the very voting stands vitiated.

5. In order to substantiate his submissions for the first proposition with regard to 7 clear days notice, Mr. Mangalam refers to Section-70 (4) and the second proviso to Section-72 (1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). He refers to Section-44 (1) (vi) of the Act as well.

6. In my view, Section-44 of the Act has no application as it deals with Panchayat Samiti, which is a separate and an independent constitutional local self government. The provision in relation to Zila Parishad, which is yet another constitutional local self government, is contained in Chapter-V of the said Act starting from Section-62 on wards. If we read Section-70 sub-section (4) of the Act, we find that the only limitation caste upon the Chairman of the Zila Parishad is that if there is a requisition then the meeting has to be fixed not later than 15 days from the date of issue of notice of the meeting. Then, reference is made to second proviso to Section-72 (1), which is quoted hereunder:–

“72. Meeting of the Zila Parishad.–

(1)…..

…..

Provided further that the Adhyaksha when required in writing by one-fifth of the members of the Zila Parishad to call a meeting shall do so within ten days failing which the aforesaid members may call a meeting after giving intimation to the District Magistrate and seven clear days notice to the Adhyaksha and the other members of the Zila Parishad.”

7. A reference to the aforesaid provision would show that the contingency of 7 clear days arises only when the Chairman (Adhyaksh) fails to fix the meeting. In the present case, it is not in dispute that upon Requisition being filed Adhyaksh, i.e., the writ petitioner, herself fixed the date. Once that was done the contingency of the members themselves fixing a date does not arise and hence the question of 7 clear days notice does not arise.

8. It may be that while dealing with Panchayat Samiti the Legislature has provided a notice fixing a date not earlier than 7 days and not later than 15 days. But, while dealing with the Zila Parishad, that distinction has been given up. Once the Legislature have so provided it is not open for the Court to read otherwise.

9. So far as the next contention of Mr. Mangalam that meeting being held or the voting being not conducted by the District Magistrate is concerned, the submission on behalf of the petitioner is equally misconceived.

10. If we refer to Section-70 (4) (i) of the Act, it would show that the provisions are clear. It provides that if the notice of no confidence is against the Adhyaksh, i.e., the Chairman, it is the Upadhyaksh, i.e., the Vice-Chairman, who would preside the meeting. If it is against the Vice-Chairman then it would be the Ch