Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

1. This writ application has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

"(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the requisition dated Nil submitted by 18 members of Rupauli Block Panchayat Samiti which is though addressed to the petitioner but was submitted in the office of Respondent no. 6 on 03.07.2018 on the ground that whereas the provisions contained under Sub-Section3 (i) of Section -44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayat Act) provides for presentation of such requisition before the Pramukh with a copy of the Executive Officer, the said requisition submitted directly in the office of Respondent no. 6 without presenting it before the petitioner in compliance of the procedure prescribed under Sub-Section-3(i) of Section-44 of the Gram Panchayat Act.

(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the notice dated 08.07.2018 issued under the signature of the Respondent no. 6 and contained in his letter no. 1256 dated 08.07.2018, whereby and where under the Respondent no. 6 has been pleased to inform all the members of Panchayat Samiti to attend the special meeting on 16.07.2018 for consideration of NO CONFIDENCE MOTION against the petitioner on the ground that if the requisition of the requisitionists was forwarded to the petitioner by the Respondent no. 6 vide his letter no. 1209 dated 03.07.2018, there was no occasion for the Respondent no. 6 to issue the impugned notice on 08.07.2018 if the date was not filed by the petitioner but by someone else encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the petitioner to take a decision on such requisition in accordance with law.

(III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner in the present case was declared elected for the post of Pramukh. It is the case of the petitioner that some of the Panchayat Samiti Members who had been defeated in the election were busy to provoke the Members of the Panchayat Samiti, Rupauli for removal of the petitioner from the post. It is alleged that after confusing the Members, their signatures were obtained on a plain paper which was subsequently converted into a requisition addressed to the petitioner in which a request was made from the petitioner to convene the Special Meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti to consider Motion of 'No Confidence' against the petitioner.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the requisition was submitted before the Executive officer in contravention of the provision as contained in Sub-Section (3) (i) of Section 44 of the Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006). The requisition, it is alleged, was never presented before the petitioner and it was directly submitted in the office of respondent no. 6, the Executive Officer, who thereafter forwarded the requisition to the petitioner vide letter no. 1209 dated 03.07.2018 with a request to fix the date of Special Meeting for consideration of the 'No Confidence Motion' against her.

4. It is stated that before 03.07.2018, the petitioner had no occasion even to see the requisition as it was directly submitted in the office of respondent no. 6. It is stated that the Special Meeting has to be convened within a period of 15 days from the date of such requisition and it has been interpreted by different Benches of this Hon'ble Court that the Pramukh has got at least 7 days time to take a decision on such requisition whether to convene or not to convene any Special Meeting on the basis of the requisition. It is the stand of the petitioner that she had a right to take a decision to convene or not to convene a Meeting until 10.07.2018 and only in case of failure of the petitioner to take a decision until 10.07.2018, the Up-Pramukh or 1/3rd of the