JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

Petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (West), Katihar by which the District Magistrate has held that the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner held on 08.08.2018 was illegal and contrary to the provisions as contained under Section 44(3) (V) and for the reason that 7 days clear notice as envisaged under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2006") were not given.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order of the District Magistrate as contained in Annexure 5' to the writ application on the ground inter alia that the District Magistrate has entertained a belated objection preferred by some of the members of the Panchayat Samiti who had participated in the special meeting held on 08.08.2018 but after the no confidence motion failed, they raised this issue of 7 days clear notice, 20 days after the no confidence motion had already been passed.

3. Briefly stating the case of the petitioner is that on receipt of a requisition dated 02.08.2018 for holding a special meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the petitioner who is Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, the petitioner fixed a date of meeting to be held on 08.08.2018. It is his contention that in Annexure 1' to the writ application which is a copy of the requisition, the requisitionists had made as many as 11 allegations against the petitioner and those were subject matter of discussions in the special meeting. The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Amdabad issued notice vide letter bearing Memo No. 1321 dated 03.08.2018 by which he called special meeting on 08.08.2018 at 11.30 A.M. It is specifically asserted that notices were served upon all the members of the Panchayat Samiti of the Block including upon the requisitionists.

4. According to the petitioner and as is evident from the minutes of the meeting dated 08.08.2018 as contained in Annexure 3' to the writ application that in addition to the petitioner 10 members of the Panchayat Samiti participated in the special meeting. There was a discussion and ultimately through secret ballot voting was done. Altogether 10 members voted in favour of the no confidence motion. Only 10 members voted in favour of motion which did not meet the requirement of at least 11 members vote to pass the motion, no confidence motion failed.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the information revealed pursuant to his application under Right to Information Act would show that the members of the Panchayat Samiti namely Majharul Haque (respondent no. 23), Faizul Haque (respondent no. 10) and others had submitted an application dated 14.08.2018 before the District Panchayat Raj officer, Katihar for staying the meeting dated 08.08.2018 and to fix another date of special meeting. Annexure 7' series to the supplementary affidavit is the copy of the application dated 14.08.2018. The application is dated 14.08.2018 and has been signed by Majharul Haque (respondent no. 23), Faizul Haque (respondent no. 10), Sainoor Khatoon (respondent no. 17) and Marjina Khatoon (respondent no. 8). Prior to the application dated 14.08.2018 the requisitionists/respondents had not made any objection regarding fixing of date of the special meeting. They filed their objection on 14.08.2018 after attending the meeting and when the no confidence motion failed in the secret voting.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that none of the requistionists filed any counter affidavit in the connected writ application rather the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 14 namely, Sunita Jha @ Sunita Devi who had not filed any objection to the holding of special meeting on 08.08.2018. It has been alleged that by filing Interlocutory Application one of the respondents Sunita Jha @ Sunita Devi has brought on r