Judgment 1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of a resolution dated the 10.10.1979, adopted at an emergent meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Sambhuganj. By this resolution, a vote of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner who had earlier on the 12.03.1979, been elected as the Pramukh of the said Sambhuganj Panchayat Samiti. The ground on which the petitioner challenges the validity of the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti is that the notice of the motion was given on 5.09.1979, which was within six months from the date of assumption of the office of Pramukh by the petitioner, and therefore, the whole proceeding was invalid in law. 2. In order to appreciate the argument, I would refer to the relevant provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 6 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sec.32 of the Act deals with the motion of non-confidence in Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 32 Provides that "a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or the 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 Smiti" Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 32 lays down the procedure for dealing with the motion, and provides that "if the motion is carried with the support of not less than two thirds 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." Under this procedure, no doubt, the motion of no-confidence was carried in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on the 10.10.1979 : Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 32 prescribed a limitation for making such a notice and it lays down that "no notice of a motion under this section shall be made within six months of assumption of office by a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh as the case may be." 3. The facts are not very much disputed in this case, and no counter-affidavit has been filed. The facts are not very much disputed in this case, and no counter-affidavit has been filed. But in a petition for vacating the stay order filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 7 and 9 to 15, namely, Up-Pramukh and some of the members of the Panchayat Samiti in question, it has been stated that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was moved on the 15.09.1979 and not on the 5th September, 1979 as stated by the petitioner. On this allegation, the copy of the notice which was made annexure-2 to the writ application by the petitioner was challenged as a forged, fabricated and manufactured document for the purpose of this case. At the time of hearing of this application, learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me the original notice in question (a copy whereof is Annexure-2) which had been served on the petitioner. I passed on the said notice to Mr. Brahmanand Singh, standing counsel No. 1 for his perusal and to point out any evidence of fabrication or concoction in this notice as alleged by some of the respondents as aforesaid. Learned standing counsel however fairly conceded, and rightly, that he was not in a position to point out any sign of interpolation or manipulation in the said notice. He however, argued that in as much as the motion of no-confidence was carried on the 10.10.1979 that is beyond the period of six months, the technical violation of the notice having been made within the period of six months was not very material and should be ignored. 4. It is difficult to accept this argument of the learned standing counsel No. 1. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 32 of the Act lays down that a motion expressing want of confidence in the office-bearers of a Panchayat Samiti has to be made by a notice, and, sub-section (4) of Sec.32 directly speaks of the making of the aforesaid notice spoken of in subsection (1), and does not talk of any matter falling under sub-section (2) of Sec.32; that is, the procedure to be followed and the event taking place after the making of the notice in question. The period of six months fixed for making of a motion, therefore, must operate from the date of the assumption of the office of the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, as the case may be, and inasmuch as it is jurisdictional fact because the motion happens to be considered at a time when the period of six months is over which is bound to elapse in almost all cases, the notice of motion having been made at a time anterior to the period of six months, cannot validate the infirmity in making of the notice. On an examination of the scheme underlying the various sub-sections of Sec.32 of the Act, it appears to me that the legislature intended that a Pramukh or in Up-Pramukh must be given an undisturbed tenure of six months from the date of the assumption of the office. On the fact found above, the notice of motion in question was made on the 5th September, 1979, that is, about a week before the prescribed period of six months had elapsed and as the making of a notice is, a sine qua non the consideration of the motion by the Samiti and the further deliberation held by the members of the Panchayat Samiti must be held to be invalid and vitiated. I, therefore, have got no doubt in my mind that the motion of no-confidence carried in the meeting on the 10th October, 1979 against the petitioner under Annexure-5 was without jurisdiction and invalid. 5. In the result, I would allow the application and quash Annexure-5. I will also allow cost in favour of the petitioner in view of wrong facts having been alleged by the respondents. The amount of cost is assessed at Rs. 250/(Rupees two hundred and fifty) only and the same will be payable by respondents 2 to 7 and 9 to 15 or any one of them.