IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17000 of 2008 RAMCHANDRA SINGH,son of late Udar Singh, resident of village-Bhadag, P.O. & P.S. Aghaura, District- Kaimur Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary,Department of Rural Development in Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar. 2. The Director, Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihat,Patna 3. The Distroct Panchayat Raj Officer, Bbabhua, Kaimur 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Bhabhua,District-Bhabhua 6. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua, District- Kaimur. 7. The Block Development Officer, Aghaura Block, Aghaura, District Kaimur. 8. Smt. Sharda Kuer wife of late Ramadhar Singh, resident of village Nonda, P.S. Aghaura, District- Kaimur. 9. Patraji Devi, wife of Shambhu Singh, resident of village Jamuninar, P.S.Aghaura, District-Kaimur. For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha,Advocate For the respondent Nos. 8 to 12: Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh,Advocate For Respondent No.14: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar,Advocate For the State: Mr. D.P. Choudhary, S.C.II --- 6. 12.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels for respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and 14 and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has come to this Court against the notice of no confidence motion dated 18.11.2008, by which the special meeting has been called for considering the same against the petitioner- Pramukh on 27.11.2008. The only ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons/charges mentioned in the said notice dated 18.11.2008 are completely vague and non-specific and it is not possible to enter into any discussion or debate with respect to the said charges in the said meeting and, therefore, the notice is contrary to the mandatory requirement of Section 44 (3) (v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. 2 In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalan Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others: 2002 (3) PLJR 201. Learned counsel for the respondents could not seriously oppose the said stand in view of the nature of the reasons/charges mentioned in the impugned notice.. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is allowed and the notice dated 18.11.2008 as well as the requisition upon which it is based are both quashed. Needless to say that it would be open to the respondents concerned to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)