Judgment 1. All these eleven writ applications have been heard together as in all of them common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. The petitioner in all these applications is the same person, a landlord against whom on the applications of different Bataidars, who are respondent No. 5 in each of the writ applications, proceedings u/s. 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were started by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani. It appears from the order of the Bataidari Magistrate, Madhubani, respondent No. 3 in all the applications, who seems to have subsequently taken over the matter, that the petitioner had nominated Shri Ram Kripal Sahu, Advocate, as his panch on the Board, but, he absented himself in the Board on 13.04.1974, 30.04.1974 and 24.05.1974 consecutively. Thereupon the Chairman of the Board recommended for the appointment of the sarpanch Girwar Yadav, to represent the landlord, under his letter dated 28-6-1974 to the Deputy Collector but before any approval was accorded by the Deputy Collector as required under sub-secs. (4) and (5) of Sec. 48E of the Act, the Chairman started the deliberations with the said sarpanch putting him as a member on the Board and by his order dated 19.07.1974 finally decided the proceeding in favour of the Bataidars. 3. Before the Bataidari Magistrate an objection was taken on behalf of the petitioner to the above illegality committed by the Chairman of the Board and on this account the findings and report of the Board were challenged to be illegal. The learned Bataidari Magistrate, however, overruled this objection on the plea that in view of the majority decision of the Board, even if the views of the sarpanch were not taken into account, it was supported by two of the members, and he accordingly accepted the recommendation of the Board and disposed of the proceedings in terms of his findings in favour of the Bataidars. The landlord has accordingly come to the court. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that failure to appoint petitioners panch in the prescribed manner has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the recommendation of the Bataidari Board should not have been accepted by the Bataidari Magistrate. In order to appreciate this argument I would indicate the relevant provisions of the law in this regard. Sub-sec. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that failure to appoint petitioners panch in the prescribed manner has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the recommendation of the Bataidari Board should not have been accepted by the Bataidari Magistrate. In order to appreciate this argument I would indicate the relevant provisions of the law in this regard. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 48E of the Act lays down that, "............if any member of the Board fails to attend the meeting of the Board on two successive dates without showing cause to the satisfaction of the Chairman, the Collector may appoint any suitable person in the prescribed manner to take his place and the proceeding shall be continued before such Board as so reconstituted." The above provision, therefore, enjoins upon the Collector to appoint any suitable person and in prescribed manner. For the expression prescribed manner we have to look into Rule 2 of the Rules framed by the State Government in this regard. According to clause (a) of this Rule the Collector after nominating a person to be the Chairman of the Board may ask both the landlord and the under Raiyat to communicate within three days of this order whether they have any objection to the nomination of the Chairman. The Chairman must be an independent person unconnected with the dispute or with any of the parties. Under clause (b) of this Rule simultaneous with the action (under) clause (a) the Collector will ask the parties to nominate their own representatives on the Board within three days of the order. It, is, therefore, obvious that the expression as mentioned in sub-section (5) of Sec. 48-E of the Act for the appointment of a suitable person in the prescribed manner means that in case of any vacancy the Collector has to ask the party concerned to nominate his representative on the Board and it is not for the Chairman of the Board to appoint anyone else as a partys nominee to fill up the vacancy. To lay down more precisely, I would hold that in the case of a partys panch going out, the party concerned himself is to choose his new representative in the same manner as in the case of first nomination. To lay down more precisely, I would hold that in the case of a partys panch going out, the party concerned himself is to choose his new representative in the same manner as in the case of first nomination. 5 The whole idea behind a dispute being decided by the Board in such a proceeding is based on a sound public policy so that the nominee of both the parties may properly appreciate and put forward the case of his respective party before the Chairman from his own point of view and highlight his partys case so that the Board may have a clear picture of both the sides to come to a correct and proper conclusion. In a situation like this it is obvious that if one of the parties representatives is removed then any person coming in his place without his approval and consent may not serve the very purpose of his nomination and would result in a vacuum in so far as one party was concerned in the Board in the sense that his side remains unrepresented and, therefore, it will result in manifest breach of the principle of natural justice. The Bataidari Magistrate in this case on his failure to follow this procedure committed an apparent error in accepting the report of the Board merely on the ground that it was still the majority decision. There is a bunch of authorities under the Arbitration Act cases where awards given by an Umpire in such a manner have been held to be vitiated. I find yet another infirmity in the order of the learned Bataidari Magistrate and that is that he has not given his own reason as required by sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 48E of the Act. According to this provision the order of the Collector in case of agreement or disagreement with the report or findings of the Board, shall be in writing based on his own ground. The order of the Magistrate only says that he was in full agreement with the recommendation of the Board and nothing more than this. 6. For all these reasons, all the petitions must succeed and the order be set aside. I would, accordingly allow all these eleven applications and set aside the order of the Bataidari Magistrate dated 1-8-1975 in all the applications.