(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.14526 of 2014. The petitioners are the appellants. The facts, in brief, are as under:-

The appellants were elected as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Ram Nagar Panchayat Samiti in the District of West Champaran, in the year 2011. One-third members of the Samiti intended to move no confidence motion against the appellants. They are said to have addressed letter dated 10.07.2014 to the 2nd appellant as well as the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ramnagar- the 5th respondent herein. Alleging that no date was fixed for no confidence motion, they submitted a representation to the 5th respondent. Thereupon, the 5th respondent proposed to convene a meeting for taking up the motion of no confidence on 05.08.2014. Assailing the notice, the appellants filed CWJC No.13829 of 2014. The same was dismissed on 13.08.2014. Thereafter, motion of no confidence was carried out on 14.08.2014. Challenging the result thereof, the present writ petition, was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal. Sri Md. Manan Khan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that nowhere in the entire proceedings, the requisitionists or the officers of the State have established that the notice for no confidence motion was served on the 2nd appellant, the Pramukh as required under Section 44 (3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act’) and still the no confidence motion was carried out. He submits that procedure stipulated for a meeting, to express want of confidence motion is to be followed strictly and any lapse in that behalf must result in annulment of the proceedings. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned senior counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the prescribed procedure was followed and even the appellants have admitted in the correspondence, particularly in Annexure-5 in the writ petition the factum of receipt of notice. The entire controversy turns around the question as to whether the motion of no confidence was moved against the appellants, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Section 44 of the Act reads as under: 44. Resignation and Removal of Pramukh and Up- Pramukh-

(1) The Pramukh may resign his office by writing under his hand and addressed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Up-Pramukh may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Pramukh and in the absence of Pramukh to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the said office shall be deemed to be vacant on the expiry of seven days from the date of such resignation unless within the said period of seven days he withdraws such resignation by writing under his hand addressed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate or the Pramukh, as the case may be.

(2) A Pramukh or Up- Pramukh shall vacate office if he ceases to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti.

(3) (i) A Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.

The requisition for such a special meeting shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, by not less than one third of the total number of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat Samiti. The Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh. The Pramukh shall convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. If the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to tak