Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. This writ petition in for quashing Annexure-4, the order dated 12.4.1982 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar (respondent No. 2), on the basis of the recommendations of the Board made under Sec. 48E(7) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, resulting in dismissal of 3atai cases of the petitioners. 2. The short point taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Board was not properly constituted on the date it made its recommendations to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar, who, in his turn, confirmed the recommendations of the Board. In this connection learned Counsel for the petitioners draw my attention to the orders dated 14.4.1980, 15.4.1980 and 22.4.1980 showing that the representative of the Bataidars was not present. 3. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, submitted that if the order sheet of the case shows that the representative of the petitioners was absent on two consecutive dates, a case for breach of Rule 3(b) of the Bihar Bataidari Rules may be made out, but the petitioners must demonstrate it to be so. He further submitted that there is no mention in the order dated 15.4.1980 as to the presence and/or absence of the representative of the petitioners, whereas in the order dated 22.4.1980, the Chairman of the Board has mentioned the absence of the representative of the petitioners. 4. How should the proceeding of the Conciliation Board be conducted becomes an issue, and in the present case, it is an issue, inasmuch as the Court has to determine the fact from the order sheet of the Conciliation Board, whether the representative of the petitioners was present on two consecutive dates of the proceeding. In this connection. Sec. 48E(5) of the Act is relevant. It requires that if the representative of any of the parties, who is a member of the Board, fails to attend the meeting of the on two consecutive 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. Re-constitution of the Board has been provided for in Rule 3 of the Bihar Bataidari Rules, which envisages that if the service of any of the members of the Board is not available by the Board to complete its work, the Collector will initiate action under Clause (a) or Clause (d) of Rule 2 and shall re-constitute the Board with a new Chairman and nominee or nominees. It further provides that if the 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 Chairman shall give intimation in this behalf to the Collector, along with his recommendations giving one or more names of adult persons cultivating land in the village where the land in dispute lies, for nomination as a member of the Board, whereupon the Collector may appoint one of the person so recommended in place of the representative who had failed to attend the meeting of the Board on two successive dates. 5. From the perusal of the order sheet in the present case, it appears that the Chairman has not taken care to obtain the signature of all the members of the Board on each days proceeding of the Board. On the contrary, it gives an impression that the Chairman of the Board was himself acting as a Court, some time mentioning the presence of the other members some time mentioning their absence and sometime nothing. Normally, all the members of the Board sign the proceeding of the day in a quasi-judicial proceeding. The proceeding before the Conciliation Board under Sec. 48E of the Act is certainly of a quasi-judicial nature and, therefore, it is expedient that the signatures of the members of the Board must appear on the day to day proceeding of the Board. If some member is not present on a particular date then there should be mention of his absence. If some member refuses to put signature on the proceeding, there must be a mention thereof in the pen of the Chairman. I am aware of the provisions of Section 48E(6) and (7) of the Act which state that failure on the part of any member of the Board to sign the report shall not affect the validity of the report, and/or finding. I am aware of the provisions of Section 48E(6) and (7) of the Act which state that failure on the part of any member of the Board to sign the report shall not affect the validity of the report, and/or finding. But this does not mean that a quasi-judicial proceeding should not be conducted in the mode and manner it is required to be conducted by obtaining the signature of the three members constituting the Board. Provisions of Section 48E(6) and (7) only mention that if any member refuses to sign the report, it will not invalidate the report or the finding. There must be a mention in the report itself in the pen of the Chairman of the Board the reason thereof. The reason for obtaining the signatures of the members of the Board in the order sheet of day to day proceeding before the Conciliation Board is required in a proceeding under Sec. 48E of the Act, because two successive absence of any member will require re-constitution of the Board, and any proceeding taken by a defunct Board is automatically invalidated. Therefore, there must be something on the face of the record wherefrom the Collector and/or writ Court can discern whether legal procedure was followed by the Conciliation Board. 6. In the present case, there is no mention as to the presence and/or absence of the representatives of the parties on 15.4.1980 and the Court is left to speculate. To avoid such a situation, the Chairman of the Board while conducting the proceeding of the Board must obtain the signatures of the other members constituting the Board, and in case anybody refuses to sign, there must be a mention thereof in the order sheet. 7. There is, however, mention in the order sheet dated 14.4.1980 of the respondent No. 3 that the representative of the petitioners was not present on that date On 22.4.1980, when the respondent No. 3 went to the spot to make inquiry, the representative of the petitioners was not present. On 23.4.1980, the respondent No. 3 rendered his report and on 24.4.1980, the respondents filed an application for the removal of the Chairman (respondent No. 3) to conduct the matter as he had gone into the clutches of respondent No. 4. On 23.4.1980, the respondent No. 3 rendered his report and on 24.4.1980, the respondents filed an application for the removal of the Chairman (respondent No. 3) to conduct the matter as he had gone into the clutches of respondent No. 4. Without going into the question whether the Chairman of the Board was gained over or not, I am satisfied that respondent No. 3 has not conducted himself as a Chairman of the Board that more or less himself constituting the Court. The Anchal Adhikari is only the Chairman of the Board and tie is mandated to conduct in consultation with the representatives of the parties. He was, therefore, required to mention in his order sheet on every date of sitting as to the absence and/or presence of the representatives of the parties. He should have obtained the signature of the representatives of the parties on the order sheet on every day proceeding. He is not a convenor, but a part of the Board like the other two members. In normal course, therefore, the signatures of all the three must appear on the order-sheet, more so because of the reason that the absence of any one of the representative on two successive dates will vitiate the entire proceeding. I find that the Board was not properly constituted on 22.4.1980. when the Chairman (respondent No. 3) made the spot inspection and is stated to have taken a decision, which, however, was signed on 23.4.1980. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and Annexure-4 is quashed, with a direction to the Collector to re-constitute the Board by giving opportunity to the both parties to re-nominate their representatives and dispose of the case in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.