IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4436 of 2009 1 Babul Akhtar, son of late Aziz Ahmad, resident of village – Motihara, P S & District – Kishanganj 2 Zubair Alam, son of Atiur Rahman, resident of village – Maida, Police Station and District – Kishanganj 3 Md Zafrul Alam, son of late Mohiuddin, resident of Village – Balia Manjhok, P S & District – Kishanganj 4 Mahmud Ali, son of Haji Anisur Rahman, resident of village – Tupa Mari, P S & District – Kishanganj 5 Abdul Jabbar, son of Haji Kalimuddin, resident of village – Chaundhi, P S & District – Kishanganj 6 Najmunnisa, wife of Rahal Amin, resident of village – Basta Dangi Patalawa, P S & District – Kishanganj 7 Tahrunnisa, wife of Md Kamil, resident of village – Ghat Bawan Toli, P S & District – Kishanganj 8 Mahjabin Saheen, wife of Md Jamaluddin, resident of village – Sanda, P S & District – Kishanganj - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The State Election Commission through the Chief Election Commissioner, Bihar, Sone Bhawan, Patna 3 The Executive Officer –cum- Block Development Officer, Kishanganj, District – Kishanganj 4 Qamrul Hoda, son of late Md Shafique Tahsildar, resident of Balichukka, P O, P S & District – Kishanganj 5 Taiyabar Rahman, son of Turab Ali, resident of village – Chhagalia, P O – Belwa, P S & District – Kishanganj - Respondents ----------- 3 24.02.2010 On petitioners own showing, in the Panchayat Samiti in which there were fourteen elected members, a no confidence motion was brought against Pramukh and Up Pramukh. After voting was done, it was found all the eight petitioners were present. Further, after votes were cast, it was found that there were seven valid votes in favour of the no confidence motion and the eighth vote of petitioner No 7 was declared invalid. Thus, the Executive Officer held that the no confidence motion had not been carried through in terms of Section 44 (3) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. This decision is challenged in this writ 2 petition. The ground of challenge is that the eighth invalid vote was because of poor eye sight where petitioner No 7 marked the vote, admittedly, outside the box in favour of motion. In my view, on this fact alone, this question needs no adjudication. The marking being beyond the box provided, the vote is invalid. The vote being invalid, there were only seven votes in support of the no confidence motion in a House which had fourteen elected members. Thus, it was 50% and not majority. Thus, the decision of the Executive Officer cannot be interfered with. The writ petition is dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)