Judgment B.P.JHA, J. 1. The petitioner moved this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing Annexure-2. By Annexure-2, Panchayat Samiti of Chandil Block passed a resolution of no confidence motion against the petitioner. The validity of the said resolution (Annexure-2) is the subject-matter of the present writ application. 2. The short point for consideration in this case is : whether the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be entertained without following the remedy prescribed under Section 78 (1) of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (Bihar Act VI of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is relevant to quote here Section 78 which runs as follows : "78. Power of revision and review by State Government.- (1) The State Government may, either suo motu or on an application made by any person interested, call for and examine the record of a Panchayat Samiti or a Zila Parishad or of its Standing Committee in respect of any proceeding to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and, if in any case it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly : Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation. (2) The State Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (3) The State Government may suo motu at any time or on an application made by any person interested within ninety days of the passing of an order under sub-section (1), review any such order if it was passed by them under any mistake, whether of fact or of law, or in ignorance of any material fact. The provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) shall apply in respect of any proceeding under this sub-section as they apply to a proceeding under sub-section (1). (4) Every application made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section shall be accompanied by a fee of ten rupees in such manner as may be prescribed." 3. (4) Every application made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section shall be accompanied by a fee of ten rupees in such manner as may be prescribed." 3. On a perusal of Section 78 (1) of the Act, it is clear that the State Government can examine the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding or decision or order passed by the Panchayat Samiti. The proviso to Section 78 (1) provides that the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation. It is also provided in subsection (2) of Section 78 that the State Government may pass a stay order in respect of any decision or order passed by the Samiti. It is also provided that the application for review can be filed for review of any order or decision passed by the Panchayat Samiti within ninety days of the passing of the order. In my opinion, the provision of Section 78 (1) of the Act is identical to Sec.397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On a perusal of Section 78 of the Act, it is clear that the Act has provided a complete machinery for giving effective remedy to the party concerned. If the proceeding of the Panchayat Samiti is challenged on the ground of regularity, correctness, legality or propriety, the party aggrieved can move the State Government under Section 78 (1) of the Act. If a party seeks to move a writ petition against the illegality of the proceeding or order or decision passed by the Panchayat Samiti, then in that case the aggrieved party is required first to move the State Government for reviewing the impugned order before filing the writ application in this Court. If the aggrieved party does not exhaust the remedy provided under Section 78 (1) of the Act, then in that case the petition under Articles 226 and 227 shall not be maintainable. In other words, if the party moves a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution without following the remedy prescribed under Section 78 (1) of the Act, in my opinion such a petition cannot be entertained by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In other words, if the party moves a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution without following the remedy prescribed under Section 78 (1) of the Act, in my opinion such a petition cannot be entertained by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In these circumstances, I hold that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner did not move a petition to the State Government under Section 78 (1) of the Act before moving the writ petition before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel of the petitioner has challenged the validity of the resolution dated 19th May, 1975 (Annexure-2) on two grounds, namely, (1) that respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 ceased to be the members of the Samiti under Sec. 5 (1) [V (a) (b)] of the Act on 12th January, 1975, and (2) that respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not eligible to cast their votes on the 19th May, 1975 for the simple reason that they were not the members as they never took oath under Section 71 of the Act. It is on the basis of these grounds that the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the requisition of the meeting (Annexure-1) was also invalid as 1/3rd of the members did not issue the requisition. In this connection Sec.32 of the Act was referred to. It is relevant to quote Sec.32 (1) and (2) which reads as follows :- "Motion of no-confidence in Pramukh or up-Pramukh. -(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti may be made by a notice signed by not less than one-third of the total number of the members of the Panchayat Samiti and it shall be dealt with in accordance with the prescribed procedure. (2) If the motion is carried with the support of not less than two-third of the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh, as the case may be, shall cease to hold the office as such and shall be deemed to have vacated the same on and from the date on which the fact of the motion having been carried is affixed on the notice board of the office of the Panchayat Samiti." 5. Sec.32 (1) provides that in a case of no-confidence against the Pramukh, the notice of requisition shall be signed by not less than one-third of the total number of the members of the Panchayat Samiti. The requisition of the meeting (Annexure-1) for no confidence against the Pramukh is dated the 5th May, 1975. In the present case, I shall proceed on the admitted facts of the case. I shall not enter into those facts which have been controverted by the parties. It is admitted in the affidavit of respondent No. 1 (Panchayat Samiti) that respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 were co-opted members and their terms expired on the 12th January, 1975. Thus, it is the admitted position that respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 were co-opted as members of the Samiti under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (v) of Sec. 5 (1) of the Act and their terms expired on 12-1-1975. 6. Section 7 (1) (b) of the Act provides that a member co-opted under Clause (v) of Sec. 5 shall hold office for a period of three years. It is said that they were co-opted under Clause (v) of Sec. 5 (1) of the Act on the 12th January 1972, and as such their terms expired on 12th January, 1975. Hence, I hold that respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 were not members on the day on which the requisition dated the 5th May, 1975 (Annexure-1) was issued as well as on the 19th May, 1975, on which date the resolution of no-confidence (Annexure-2) was passed. Hence, I hold that these respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 shall not be counted as members for the purpose of Sec.32 (1) and (2) of the Act. On a perusal of the requisition (Annexure-1), it is clear that respondents 2, 3 and 6 issued the requisition along with ten others on 5th May, 1975. In view of the above-mentioned finding, I hold that respondents 2, 3 and 6 had no authority in law to issue a requisition under Sec.32 (1) of the Act as they were not members of the Samity on that day. Sec.32 (1) requires that the requisition in connection with a no-confidence motion should be signed by not less than one-third of the total number of the Panchayat Samiti. Sec.32 (1) requires that the requisition in connection with a no-confidence motion should be signed by not less than one-third of the total number of the Panchayat Samiti. I have been informed by learned Counsel of both the parties trial the total number of the members of the Panchayat Samiti of Chandil Block was 27. If respondents 2, 3 and 6 are excluded, it is clear that the requisition (Annexure-1) was validly signed by ten persons. In this circumstance, I hold that one-third of the total number (27) signed the valid requisition under Sec.32 (1) of the Act. I, therefore, hold that a valid meeting was held on the 19th May, 1975 on the basis of the requisition (Annexure-1). 7. On a perusal of the resolution dated 19th May, 1975 (Annexure-2), it is clear that eighteen persons voted for no confidence against the petitioner, and the rest seven persons including the petitioner abstained from voting. In other words, out of 27 members, 25 members of the Samiti were present on 19th May, 1975. Respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 also voted for no confidence against the petitioner. In view of the finding mentioned above, I exclude respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 for the simple reason that they had no right to vote as they ceased to be members on the 12th January, 1975. If these four persons are excluded, then it is clear that 14 persons out of 21 persons who were present at the time of voting cast their vote against the Pramukh. Sec.32 (2) requires that no-confidence motion shall be carried with the support of not less than two-third members of the Panchayat Samiti present. On a perusal of Annexure-2, it is clear that 25 members of the Samiti were present. I have excluded four of them, namely, respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7, for the simple reason that they had ceased to be members of the Samiti on 12th January, 1975. Hence, out of 21 members, 14 members voted for no-confidence against the petitioner. In this circumstance, I hold that two-third members of the Panchayat Samiti, that is, fourteen persons present voted for no confidence against the petitioner. In my opinion, the resolution was a valid one as it has complied with the requirements of Sec.32 (2) of the Act. 8. Hence, out of 21 members, 14 members voted for no-confidence against the petitioner. In this circumstance, I hold that two-third members of the Panchayat Samiti, that is, fourteen persons present voted for no confidence against the petitioner. In my opinion, the resolution was a valid one as it has complied with the requirements of Sec.32 (2) of the Act. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also challenged the membership of respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the ground that they were not members of the Samiti as they did not take oath in accordance with Section 71 of the Act read with P. R. Circular Nos. 19 and 20 at pages 361 and 362 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Manual. It is relevant to quote Section 71 (1) and (2) which runs as follows: "71. Oath of allegiance to be taken by members.- (1) Every member of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad and such members of its Standing Committees as are not members of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe at a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad or the Standing Committee, as the case may be, an oath or affirmation according to the following form, namely;- xx xx xx (2) No such member shall take his seat at a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti or of the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, or do any act as such member unless he has made and subscribed the oath or affirmation in accordance with the provision of this section." Sec. 71 (2) of the Act thus provides that the oath shall be subscribed in accordance with the provisions of this section. Section 71 (1) provides that, before taking his seat in the Samiti, a member shall take an oath according to the terms as laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act. On a perusal of paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Samiti (respondent No. 1), it is clear that the members took oath in accordance with Section 71 of the Act. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that oath was not taken in accordance with Circular Nos. 19 and 20. I find that Circular Nos. 19 and 20 were not issued under the Act, and, as such, these circulars have no statutory force in law. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that oath was not taken in accordance with Circular Nos. 19 and 20. I find that Circular Nos. 19 and 20 were not issued under the Act, and, as such, these circulars have no statutory force in law. These circulars are the directions issued by the officers of the State Government. Section 71 (2) requires that the oath should be taken in accordance with Section 71. The admitted position on the basis of the affidavit of Respondent No. 1 is that the oath was taken under Section 71 of the Act. If it is so, I am unable to exclude the membership of respondents 4 and 5. I have already excluded the membership of respondents 2 and 3, as mentioned in earlier paragraphs. 9 There is another aspect of the matter, and, that is this the petitioner could have challenged the resolution (Annexure-2) dated the 19th May, 1975 in a revision petition under Section 78 (1) of the Act on the ground that respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not the members, as they did not take oath under Section 71 of the Act. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not move any such petition under Section 78 (1) of the Act challenging the validity of the membership of respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5, the petitioner is not entitled to raise this point for the first time in the writ petition. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that some of the respondents coerced the members in casting vote. These facts have been denied in paragraphs 11 and 22 of the counter-affidavit of respondents 8, 10 and 11. In this circumstance, I shall not examine this part of the allegation of the petitioner as it has been controverted by respondents 8, 10 and 11 in their counter-affidavit in paragraphs 11 and 22. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.