IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14190 of 2008 SUDAMA CHERO, son of late Nanhu Chero, resident of village – Belduria, Police Station – Chutia, District – Rohtas. _____Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Rohtas. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dehri, District – Rohtas. 5. Executive Officer cum Block Development Officer cum Secretary, Block Panchayat Samittee, Nauhatta Block, District – Rohtas. 6. Rajeshwar Prasad, son of Ratan Mahto, resident of Village & P.O. Nauhatta, P S – Nauhatta, District – Rohtas. 7. Padum Prasad, son of Gudan Prasad, resident of village – Bhaniya Baulia, PS – Nauhatta, District – Rohtas. 8. Binod Singh, son of Sri Bigan Singh, resident of Village – Sahpur, Post office – Baulia, PS – Nauhatta, District – Rohtas. 9. Deoki Devi, wife of Pradeep Das, village – Daranagar, PS – Nauhatta, District – Rohtas. 10. Lalita Devi, wife of Nandkishore Yadav, resident of village – Bhadara, Police Station-Nauhatta, District – Rohtas. 11. Fulmati Devi, wife of Lakshman Ram, resident of village – Naudiha, PS – Nauhatta, District – Rohtas. 12.Munna Ram, son of Ram Pravesh Ram, resident of Village-Teeura, Police Station –Chutia, District – Rohtas. 13. Anita Devi, wife of Pramod Singh, resident of village – Porchha, PS – Chutia, District –Rohtas. 14. Sunil Baitha, son of Mundrika Baitha, resident of village – Teeyara Khurd, PS – Chutia, District – Rohtas. 15. Madhav Dubey, son of Ayodhyanath Dubey, resident of village – Panduka, PS – Chutia, District – Rohtas. 16. Dadni Devi wife of Lakshman Sah, resident of village – Nauhatta, PS –Nauhatta, district – Rohtas. 17. Mehboob Ansari, son of Rabik Faruch Mian, resident of village – Deodan, P.O. Gyanipuar, PS-Nauhatta, District – Rohtas. ______Respondents ----------- 13. 24.07.2009 I.A. No. 4012 of 2009 has come to be filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the order of stay earlier passed by - 2 - this Court on 19.9.2008. The petition was filed with an object that the matter itself should now be decided because the order of stay has made the body in question non-functional. The dispute was with regard to motion of no confidence which was brought against Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of what is known as Nauhatta Block in the district of Rohtas. The notice of no confidence and fixing a special meeting became a subject matter in the present writ application. Contention of the petitioner was that the requirement under section 44 (3) (i) of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act was not followed. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that for the sake of argument they accept the position that the motion of no confidence and the notice may not have been in terms of the procedure laid down therein and in that view of the matter they would like this Court to interfere with the said motion and may be even the meeting and the decision taken therein . With a categorical statement having been made in this regard and the stand taken by them to give a goby to the motion of no confidence and the decision of the special meeting, the primary grievance of the petitioner does not exist any more. More so when the Court is inclined to declare the same to be unconstitutional. Learned counsel for the petitioner has certain reservation on the turn around of events but that does not take away the ground reality that if the notice and the subsequent decision in the meeting is declared to be invalid, nothing much will be left to be decided so far - 3 - the writ is concerned. In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, the writ application of the petitioner is allowed. Annexure-1 dated 12.9.2008 contained in Memo No. 634 stands quashed. Needless to say that any decision taken on the special meeting on 22.9.2008 will be inconsequential. The writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)