IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13124 of 2009 1. SUDAMA CHERO S/O LATE NANHU CHERO VILL- BELDURIA, P.S-CHUTIA, DISTT- ROHTAS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR SECRETARY 2. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVERNEMNT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DIHRI DISTT- ROHTAS 5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CUM SECRETARY BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE, NAUHATTA BLOCK, DISTT- ROHTAS 6. RAJESHWAR PRASAD S/O RATAN MAHTO VILL AND P.O- NAUHATTA, P.S- NAUHATTA, DISTT- ROHTAS 7. PADUM PRASAD S/O GUDAN PRASAD VILL-BHANIYA BAULIA, P.S- NAUHATTA, DISTT- ROHTAS 8. BINOD SINGH S/O SRI BIGAN SINGH VILL-SAHPUR, P.O-BAULIA, P.S-NAUHATTA, DISTT- ROHTAS 9. DEOKI DEVI W/O PRADEEP DAS VILL- DARANAGAR, P.S-NAUHATTA, DISTT- ROHTAS 10. LALITA DEVI W/O NANDKISHORE YADAV VILL-BHADARA, P.S-NAUHATTA, DISTT- ROHTAS 11. FULMATI DEVI W/O LAKSHMAN RAM VILL- NANDIHA, P.S- NAUHATTA, DISTT- ROHTAS 12. MUNNA RAM S/O RAM PRAVESH RAM VILL-TEEURA, P.S-CHUTIA, DISTT- ROHTAS 13. ANITA DEVI W/O PRAMOD SINGH VILL- PORCHHA, P.S- CHUTIA, DISTT- ROHTAS 14. SUNIL BAITHA S/O MUNDRIKA BAITHA VILL-TEEYARA KHURD, P.S- CHUTIA, DISTT- ROHTAS 15. MADHAV DUBEY S/O AYODHYA DUBEY VILL-PANDUKA, P.S- CHUTIA, DISTT- ROHTAS 16. DADNI DEVI W/O LAKSHMAN SAH VILL-NAUHATTA, P.O AND P.S- NAUHATA, DISTT- ROHTAS 17. MAHBUB ANSARI S/O RABIK FARUKH MIAN VILL-DEODAN, P.O-GYANIPUR, P.S- NAUHATTA, DISTT- ROHTAS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Thakur Mr. Raghunandan Kr. Singh. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary. Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey. ----------- 03 26.11.2009 Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur in support of the writ petition. By this writ petition he challenges the convening of so called meeting for considering no confidence motion against the Pramukh and Up Pramukh of the Prakhand Panchayat Samittee, Nauhatta . - 2 - The meeting was to be held on 07th October, 2009. When the writ petition was taken on 07th October, 2009, this Court refused to stay the meeting. It is not in dispute that the meeting was held. The Panchayat had elected 13 members, which elected the Pramukh and Up Pramukh, who are facing no confidence motion. It is also not in dispute that the no confidence motion was carried through by 9 votes as against 1. Thus, out of the 13 members House 9 were in favour of the no confidence. Evidently, on the floor of the house the Pramukh and Up Pramukh had lost vote of confidence. In my view, that is sufficient for this Court not to entertain this writ petition. Reinstatement would be necessary consequence of technicality that would be against the will of the House where the House has to run on democratic principle that would amount reinstatement on technical grounds, who fail to enjoy the confidence of the house, that is not to be done. The writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed as such. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)