IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9375 of 2010 JIBACHH YADAV S/O LATE RAM ADHIN YADAV R/O VILL.- KALUAHI, P.S.- KALUAHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI…PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI 5. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, MADHUBANI 6. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, MADHUBANI 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CUM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KALUAHI BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE, KALUAHI 8. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BEERCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 9. BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE, KALUAHI THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KALUAHI BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 10. SHIV TARNI DEVI, UP PRAMUKH KALUAHI PRAKHAND PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 11. SRI SAISTWA JAMAL, MEMBER OF KALUAHI PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE FROM MALMAL SOUTH, DISTT.- MADHUBANI ….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :M/s Ajay Thakur and Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocates. For the State : Ms. Pallavi Thakur, AC to GA-7 For private respondents: M/s S.B.K. Mangalam, Dhananjay Kumar and Anita Kumari, Advocates. For the Election Commission : Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. ----------- 08/ 20.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities (respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7), learned counsel for the State Election Commission (respondent no.8) as well as learned counsel for the private respondents, who have already appeared in the instant case. It may be noted that in spite of valid service of notice upon respondent no.11, no one has appeared on her behalf. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging 2 the resolution of special meeting dated 16.05.2010 with respect to No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh (petitioner) of Kaluahi Prakhand Panchayat Samiti in the district of Madhubani. The point involved in the instant case is that the said Samiti was constituted in the year 2006 having twenty elected members out of whom one member, namely Saistwa Jamal (respondent no.11) submitted her letter of resignation on 05.05.2010 (Annexure-R/2). 3. It may be noted that requisition was submitted by ten elected members on 04.05.2010 for holding a meeting of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner according to which the petitioner himself directed to convene the said meeting on 16.05.2010 and for that purpose notices were issued to all the members including Saistwa Jamal (respondent no.11) who while receiving the said notice, noted that she had already sent her letter of resignation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter meeting of No Confidence Motion was held on 16.05.2010 in which twelve elected members took part out of whom ten members voted in favour of No Confidence Motion and two voted against it. 4. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that although resignation was sent on 05.05.2010 by respondent no.11, but that date cannot be the relevant date as the resignation letter having been received on 14.05.2010, this date has to be counted for assuming resignation of respondent no.11 which according to law is after seven days of the receipt of such resignation letter. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case when the meeting was held on 16.05.2010 the statutory period of seven days had not lapsed and hence the said member 3 Saistwa Jamal should not have been legally presumed to have resigned. In that circumstances, ten votes were not sufficient to pass the No Confidence Motion, as the requirement was at least 11 out of 20. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the date of sending the resignation by registered post was the date from which the period of seven days had to be counted specially when in receipt of notice respondent no.11 had specifically stated that she had already sent her resignation. He also submits that the Executive Officer had clearly stated that he had received the resignation of respondent no.11 through registered post on 06.05.2010 and from that date also clear seven days had lapsed when the meeting was held. 6. After serious contest between the parties, finally both of them agree that if an urgent date for holding a fresh No Confidence Motion is fixed considering respondent no.11 Saistwa Jamal as already resigned, there will be no objection if the instant writ petition is allowed. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned proceeding of No Confidence Motion dated 16.05.2010 (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed and the Executive Officer is directed to issue fresh notice to all the 19 members of the Prakhand Panchayat excluding respondent no.11 Saistwa Jamal, who has already resigned, so that a meeting is fixed expeditiously preferably by the end of this month. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)