Ashutosh Kumar, J. – An issue of seminal importance has arisen as to whether in a "no confidence" motion brought against a Adhyaksh or Upadhyaksh of Zila Parishad under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) , the motion would be successfully carried out by a majority of the total number of directly elected members from the territorial constituencies of Zila Parishad or by the majority of the directly elected members present and voting.

2. A Division Bench of this Court in Sarita Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and Others (L.P.A. No. 940 of 2008) had held that such a motion could be carried out only by the majority of the total of the directly elected members of the Zila Parishad. In that case, a motion of "no confidence" against the Chairman of the Zila Parishad, Patna having 46 directly elected members was brought about. At the special meeting held for the purpose of considering the "no confidence" motion, 27 members had participated. Three out of them had not taken part in actual voting. Out of 24 members, who had voted, 23 had voted in favour of "no confidence" and one had voted against the motion. Since 23 members did not constitute the majority of the directly elected members, it was held that the "no confidence" motion stood defeated and the Chairman was allowed to continue.

3. It was contended that since majority of the members present and voting had supported the motion, the Chairman ought to have been removed from the office.

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, on a plain reading of Section 70 (4) (1) of the Act, rejected the contention that the motion had successfully been carried out, as the members present and voting did not constitute the majority of the directly elected members.

5. In the intra Court appeal against the aforenoted decision of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, held that Section 70 (4) of the Act makes it very clear that only when the majority of the total number of directly elected members support the motion of "no confidence", then only such motion can be said to have been carried out. The requirement is not of the members present and voting, but of the majority of the directly elected members.

6. About twelve years later, in Dharamsheela Kumari vs. Hemant Kumar and Ors. : (2021) 3 PLJR 346 [: 2021 (4) BLJ 194], a Division Bench dealing with Sections 44 and 46 of the Act, concerning "no confidence" motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh held that under Section 44 (3) of the Act, a "no confidence" motion would be carried out if voted for by the members of the Panchayat Samiti, present and voting, as no quorum is prescribed for carrying out the motion of "no confidence".

7. It may be noted that Section 44, falling in Chapter–IV of the Act is exactly similar to Section 70, which falls in Chapter–V of the Act. Chapter–IV of the Act deals with Panchayat Samitis, whereas Chapter–V deals with Zila Parishad.

8. Faced with this difference of opinion with respect to the construction of the relevant clause dealing with "no confidence" motion, the issue has been placed before this Full Bench for a resolution.

9. In Dharamsheela Kumari (supra), 10 out of 22 members of the Panchayat Samiti, Vaishali had submitted a requisition for a "no confidence" motion against both the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. In the special meeting held for the purpose, only 10 out of 22 elected members of the Samiti had participated in the proceedings in which the requisitionists and the Pramukh as well as the Up-Pramukh were not present. In the said meeting, 7 members by voice vote supported the motion. However, it was opined by the person who had presided over the meeting that since only 10 out of 22 members had voted for the motion, it had to be rejected as the majority would require the voting by at least 12 members.

10. It was in this context that the issue had arisen whether Section 44 (3) of the Act mandated any quorum for the special meeting convened to discuss