IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.149 of 2009 SUNITA GUPTA,wife of shree Binod Kumar Gupta, R/O Village and P.O.Mahadeopur,Distt-Katihwar.— Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The district Magistrate, Katihar 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Katihar 4. The Subdivisional Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Katihar 5. Block Development Officer, Pranpur, Dist- Katihar 6. Smt.Naseema Begum wife of Khurshid Alam, Member Panchayat Samittee Kewala, R/O Bhallgore, Dist-Katihar 7. Md. Safikur Rahman, Peon in the office of the B.D.O. Pranpur, Katihar 8. Smt.Sunita Devi wife of Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Deputy Pramukh, Pranpur, Katihar 9. Shree Pramod Kumar Singh 10.Shree Ranjeet Singh 11.Shree Md. Jullu Rahman 12.Shree Kishan Singh 13.Md. Jazhangir 14.Julum Singh 15.Amar Kumar Rajak 16.Shree Thakur Murmu 17.Smt.Maranju Nisha 18.Badenur 19.Smt. Babita Kumar 20.Sunita 21.Ruksena 22.Manjera, No.9 to 22 are members of Pranpur Panchayuat Samitee, Katihar.--- Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Singh For the respondents : Ms. Roy shivaji Nath Sudhir Singh T.M Maitin S.N.Pathak Shivendra Kishore. ----- 2. 19.2.2009. Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.11565 of 2008 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner appellant is Pramukh of Pranpur Panchayat. A motion of no 2 confidence was brought against her and notice dated 19.7.2008 was issued fixing 5th of August, 2008 as the date of holding special meeting to consider the motion. No confidence motion was carried out against the appellant. Appellant challenged the notice as also the motion of no confidence passed in the writ application, which has given rise to the impugned order. Learned Single Judge found that as no clear seven days notice was given for holding the meeting to consider the no confidence m0otin, the notice as also the no confidence motion passed against the appellant are illegal and accordingly, allowed the writ application and quashed the notice as also the no confidence motion. However, while doing so, the learned Single judge has observed as follows: xxx.- It shall be open to the Up- Pramukh or 1/3rd of the directly elected members to fix a fresh date convening the special meeting and direct the Executive Officer to issue notice in accordance with law accordingly.” Appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid observation of the Court. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate, 3 appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that in view of the aforesaid observation of the court, the appellant, who is the Pramukh of the Panchayat, shall be denuded of the power to convene the meeting. We are not at all impressed by this submission of Mr. Kanth. The aforesaid observation of the court goes to suggest that the Up-Pramukh or 1/3rd of the directly elected members may convene the said meeting. It is permissible in law. It seems that the appellant is trying to avoid the consideration of motion. We are of the opinion that this appeal is absolutely misconceived, which is a dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/ to be paid by the appellant to the State of Bihar. ahk (C. K. Prasad,ACJ) (Dharnidhar Jha)