Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh duly assisted by Mrs. Bandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar has suo moto appeared on behalf of the respondent no.7.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to provide a copy of the petition in course of the day.

3. The present writ petition has been been preferred for the grant of following reliefs:—

(i) For quashing of requisition dated 26.09.2024 filed by 16 members of Sonpur Block Panchayat Ara Sadar, District- Bhojpur at Ara address to the petitioner No. 1 by which the petitioner No. 1 has requested to call for the special meeting for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner and Uppramukh of Sonpur Block Panchayat Samiti, District- Saran in terms of provision made in Section 44 (3) (ii) of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act.

(ii) For during pendency of the present writ application any proposed special meeting to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.

(iii) For any other relief/s for which the petitioner may found to be entitled within the facts and circumstances of this case.

4. The case of the petitioners, the ‘Pramukh’ and ‘Up-Pramukh’ of Ara Sadar Block Panchayat Samiti, Bhojpur is/are that earlier, the ‘No Confidence Motion’ was taken up on 12.01.2024 but since no one appeared, it was recorded as failed.

5. In that background, the fresh requisition made by the 16 members out of 27 members of the Panchayat Samiti has to be interfered with inasmuch as when no voting took place in the first meeting, the same be taken to its logical conclusion. According to him, the date of the second meeting has been fixed as 15.10.2024.

6. He relies on the judgment of Fulo Baitha vs. Lalan Kumar Paswan and Ors. (LPA No. 930 of 2024) by which the Division Bench of Patna High Court in paragraph nos. 6 to 11 observed as follows:—

6. As in Dharamshila Kumari (supra), another requisition was moved on 19.08.2024, again for No Confidence Motion, which has been placed for consideration on 20.09.2024. Dharamshila Kumari (supra) in paragraph no. 122, clearly indicated that when the No Confidence Motion has not been put to vote in the House, then necessarily it has to be taken to its logical conclusion.

7. In such circumstances, the special meeting convened for considering the No Confidence Motion of 19.08.2024, scheduled on 20.09.2024 would stand cancelled. However, the first No Confidence Motion of 28.12.2023 which has not reached its logical conclusion, should be placed in a special meeting to be convened. In the teeth of the controversy existing between the parties and also considering the fact that the requisition has been placed as early as in December, 2023, we issue the following directions.

8. A special meeting will be convened on 03.10.2024; which we constitute on consent of the parties, at 11 a.m. in the Block Headquarters. The No confidence Motion of 28.12.2023 shall be placed and considered in accordance with the binding dictum in Dharamshila Kumari (supra).

9. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh, till the No confidence Motion is considered, shall not exercise any financial powers and shall not take any policy decisions.

10. The Executive Officers shall issue notice to all the members of the Panchayat Samiti about the date fixed by this Court.

11. The appeal stands disposed of.

7. He submits that they have no grievance if the first meeting is revived and taken to its logical conclusion by way of voting.

8. As stated, Mr. Manoj Kumar has already appeared on behalf of the respondent no.7, one of the member of the Panchayat Samiti, Ara Sadar. He submits that there is no fault in calling for the second meeting when the first meeting came to an end without voting in view of the order passed by the another Division Bench in Dharamsheela Kumar vs. Hemant Kumar and Ors. reported in 2021(3) PLJR 346 wherein it was recorded that in paragraph no.118 as follows:—

Iss