Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court as to why the meeting said to be convened on 19th March, 1981 to consider a motion of no confidence against the petitioner the Pramukh of the Panchayat Saraiti, Begusarai be not held illegal. The writ application was filed on the 18th March and the meeting was held on the 19th March, 1981 when a motion of no confidence against the petitioner was carried. The operation of the resolution was, however, stayed by this Court while admitting the application on 30-3-81. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected the Pramukh of the Begusarai Panchayat Samiti on 24th March, 1979, consisting of 36 members. On 27-10-1980, 22 of its members filed a requisition for calling a meeting of the Samiti to consider the no confidence motion against the Pramukh on various charges against him. As would appear from the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the aforesaid requisition petition was handed over to the Secretary of the Panchayat Samiti on 28th October, 1980, who sent the same to the Pramukh under his letter dated 29-10-80, asking the petitioner to call for a special meeting for consideration of the motion failing which he (the Secretary) would himself call for a meeting within three days thereafter. The petitioner is said to have avoided to receive the said letter for a considerable time which was, however, ultimately received by him on 17th November, 1980. Thereafter the petitioner called for the meeting on 9-12-80 at 11 A.M. but issued notices of the meeting only to some of the members and not to all of them, particularly the requisitionists. 3. In the meeting convened on 9th December, 1980, under the Chairmanship of Ganesh Singh, the Mukhiya of Khamhar Panchayat, only 12 members of the Samiti including the petitioner, could be present half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting The Chairman, in view of this fact, thought that the meeting could not be held and he accordingly closed the meeting observing that the persons who were present opposed the motion of no confidence. It would do better to quote the relevant minutes of this meeting which read as follows: 11. baje din se baithak bulai gayl thi. It would do better to quote the relevant minutes of this meeting which read as follows: 11. baje din se baithak bulai gayl thi. 11.35 baje din tak sirf 12 hi weyakti upasthit bo paye, Isliye aaj ki karyawai par kisi parkar ka vichar vimarsh nahin ho saka. Atah aaj ki baithak samapt kiya jaye. Upasthit sadasyon ne awiswas prastao ka virodh kiya. Sd. Sabhapati (Adhyaksh) Oanesh Singh 9-12-80 In the counter-affidavit it has been further stated that in the meeting of 9th December, 1980 only one of the requisitionists Bhadai Sao was present and that it was not a legally and validly constituted meeting. The requisitionists moved the Collector of Begusarai against the conduct of the petitioner in calling for the meeting in a clandestine manner. An enquiry was held by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Begusarai who supported the case of the requisitionists. The Pramukh was, therefore, instructed by the letter dated 3rd March, 1981 of the District Development Officer, Begusarai to convene a fresh meeting within seven days of the receipt of the same failing which, the Block Development Officer, who was also the Secretary of the Samiti, was asked to convene the meeting within three days thereafter. The Pramukh, however, did not carry out this direction and accordingly, the impugned notice was issued by the Block Development Officer fixing the date for convening the meeting on 19th March, 1981 (vide Annexure 3) which has been challenged by the petitioner. 4. Before, however, going to the points advanced in challenge of this notice and the subsequent meeting, the relevant provisions of the law may be noticed. Sec.32 of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act) deals with the procedure to consider the matter of no confidence against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and according to Sub-section (1) thereof, a motion expressing want of confidence in either of the two officers, may be made by a notice singed by not less than one third of the total number of the members of the Panchayat Samiti. According to the procedure prescribed under Sub-section (2), the said motion can be carried only with the support of not less than two third of the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting at the meeting. According to the procedure prescribed under Sub-section (2), the said motion can be carried only with the support of not less than two third of the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting at the meeting. Then Sub-section (3) deals with situations (1) where the motion of no confidence is not carried as contemplated under Sub-sections (2) or (3) the meeting in question is not held for want of a quorum. It is obvious that if the meeting is held and the motion fails, there is the end of the matter. But life of the motion is also to cease and die out if the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, because it further provides that notice of such motion shall not be given until after the expiration of six months from the date of such a meeting. In other words after one dual a six months "Truce" period is contemplated and after expiry of the said period, if the members want to reagitate question of no confidence, then everything has to be done without deriving any aid from the previous events. It is on the basis of this provision that Mr. Rash Bihari Singh appearing in support of the petition contended that inasmuch as in the meeting of 9th December, 1980, 12 persons were present thereby making a quorum of one third members of the Samiti, the meeting could not have been adjourned. To put in more clear term, the argument was that if the quorum was complete, then the motion had to be put for consideration, If that was not done for any reason, then the motion of no confidence did not survive beyond 9-12-1980, Before, however, recording my conclusion, I may also refer some of the Rules of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1963. The relevant rules are 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14. Rule 5 deals with ordinary meeting of the Panchayat Samities and no meeting shall be held unless notice of the place, date and time of the meeting and of the business to be transacted, is given in writing to members at least ten clear days before the date of the meeting. Under Rule 6, the agenda for the meeting is to be prepared by the Block Development Officer in consultation with the Pramukh. Under Rule 6, the agenda for the meeting is to be prepared by the Block Development Officer in consultation with the Pramukh. Rule 7 deals with the procedure for convening the special meeting under Sec.32 of the Act for considering a no confidence motion against the Pramukh which reads as follows: The Pramukh/Adhyaksha shall call for a special meeting including the meeting for considering no confidence motion against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh/Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha within seven days of the receipt of the request in writing signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the Samiti/Parishad specifying the resolution which it is proposed to move: Provided that where the Pramukh/Adhyaksha does not call the meeting within the time limit, the Block Development Officer/Secretary shall call the meeting within three days thereafter. Rule 13 prescribes the quorum to be one third of the total number of the members of the Samiti/Parishad. According to rule 14, if within half an hour after the time appointed for a meeting, the quorum is not present, the meeting shall stand adjourned to another date and time, and no quorum is to be necessary for the adjourned meeting. 5 From perusal of the above rules and the provisions of the Act, it is obvious that a no confidence motion has to be considered in a special meeting called for and conducted under Sec.32 read with rule 7, and not according to the procedure for convening the ordinary meeting. The provisions of adjournment of a meeting, in my view, therefore, would not apply to a special meeting, in view of Sub-section (3) of Sec.32 of the Act, which contemplates of making of a fresh notice for any subsequent motion of no confidence. Even the postponement of a meeting of a Samiti or Parishad is contemplated only in one circumstance, viz. absence of the requisite quorum within half an hour of the appointed time of the meeting. It is perhaps under this impression that the Chairman of the meeting had said that half an hour had passed and only 12 persons could be present, although that had constituted the quorum. The motion has to be considered with speed and the meeting has to be called for only within seven days time, and on the failure of the Pramukh, the Block Development Officer/Secretary has got to call for the meeting within three days thereafter. The motion has to be considered with speed and the meeting has to be called for only within seven days time, and on the failure of the Pramukh, the Block Development Officer/Secretary has got to call for the meeting within three days thereafter. 6. The learned Government Pleader-V, however, contended that the limitation of three days put for calling for the meeting by the Block Development Officer should not be considered to be in continuation of the seven days time and that the limitation of three days must be considered from the receipt of the information by the Block Development Officer/Secretary of the failure of the Pramukh to convene the meeting within seven days aforesaid. It is not possible to accept this argument as under rule 6, it is the Block Development Officer, who is to prepare the agenda etc. and, therefore, he must be aware that the meeting is not going to be convened within seven days, and, therefore, if notice of the meeting to be convened by the Pramukh is not received within this time, then the Block Development Officer has to move in the matter himself; but assuming for the arguments sake that the three days time fixed for convening the meeting is to be computed from the date of his being aware of the failure of the Pramukh, even in that event, it cannot be gain-said that the Block Development Officer could convene the meeting at his pleasure, I, however, do not propose to lay down that the time limit for convening the meeting by the Pramukh or three days on his failure by the Block Development Officer/Secretary, as aforesaid is mandatory. In my view, it is simply directory. 7. Be that as it may, if the meeting of 9th December, 1980 was invalid, as is the case of the intervenor and/or of the contesting respondents, and if the first meeting be deemed to have been held to consider the motion of no confidence only on 19th March, 1981, the date of requisition being 27-10-1980, it was held after a period of five months. The resolution in such circumstances cannot be permitted to be operative. On the other hand, if the meeting of 9th December, 1980 is held to be valid, then the quorum was complete as twelve members were present and the motion had got to be put through. The resolution in such circumstances cannot be permitted to be operative. On the other hand, if the meeting of 9th December, 1980 is held to be valid, then the quorum was complete as twelve members were present and the motion had got to be put through. That having been not done, the requisition lost its life and it could not be placed in the meeting of 19th March, 1981, which was not only without limitation of six months provided under Sec.32(3) of the Act, but also without any fresh requisition. 8. Therefore, considering the case from any angle, I have no hesitation in holding that no legal meeting could be held on 19th March 1981 to consider the motion according to the prescribed procedure under the Act and the rules discussed above. Once this view is taken, it goes without saying that the motion of no confidence purported to have been carried in this meeting cannot stand as having been adopted in an illegally constituted meeting. The said resolution is therefore, void. 9. In the result, the application succeeds as indicated above and I quash the orders as contained in Annexures 2 and 3 to this application, but without any order as to costs.