IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14798 of 2008 Shashi Bhushan Kumar, son of Shri Jagdish Rai, resident of village-Sobhitapur, P.S. Rajapur, District- East Champaran, Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti- Tetaria, Block- Tetaria. Vs. 1. The State of Bihat 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The Sub- divisional Officer, Pakari Dayal, District- East Champaran 6. The Executive Officer-cum- Block Development Officer, Block Tetaria, District, East Champaran 7. Shri Laxami Narain Prasad 8. Mr. Anil Kumar 9. Smt. Kanti Devi 10. Shri Ram Prawesh Ram 11. Smt. Babuni Devi 12. Shri Heera Lal Sah 13. Shri Ramesh Sah 14. Smt. Phool Kumari Devi 15. Smt. Saniya Devi 16. Smt.Sumitra Devi 17. Smt. Meena Devi 18. Shri Harish Chandra. For the petitioners : Mr. S. Anugrah Narain Senior Advocate Mr. S.P. Srivastava,Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla,Advocate For Respondent Nos. 9 to 18: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sunil Prasad, Advocate. --- 4. 14.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that the requisition dated 4.9.2008 is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 46 (3) (1) of the of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 under which the same ought to have been addressed to the petitioner as Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, whereas the same was addressed to the Block Development Officer. The second ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 18.9.2008 fixing the date for special meeting as 25.9.2008 is violative of Section 46 (4) of the Bihar 2 Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The further stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice itself has been issued by the Circle Inspector, Anchal and Block Tetaria purporting to be the Incharge Executive Officer, which he cannot do in terms of the provisions of the Act as well as the notification issued by the State government. Learned counsels for the private respondents although allege that the entire matter has been manipulated by the petitioner himself so as to take legal benefits, but they do not seriously contest the aforesaid points stating that they are willing to file a fresh requisition in accordance with law in the matter since they have clearly overwhelming majority in the Panchayat Samiti. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The requisition dated 4.9.2008 and the notice dated 18.9.2008 as also the resolution for No Confidence Motion passed in the special meeting held on 25.9.2008 are quashed. It is made clear that it will be open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)