Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12 April, 2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 3855 of 2002 : Lalan Singh & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2. Some members of the Panchayat Samiti filed a writ petition that a motion of no confidence against the Pramukh was not permitted to be carried by the Executive Officer. This Court is not going into the question that a motion of no confidence was hovering between fifty-fifty votes cast or the Pramukhs vote had stabilised the motion and if his vote is not to be counted the motion may be carried. This is not an issue. 3. The Court is examining the root cause on which a motion of no confidence was carried. The root cause was the proposal brought on which the motion of no confidence was considered. Time and again, the Court has expressed that a motion of no confidence must have specific allegations against an incumbent, Pramukh or a Mukhiya, so that a person who faces a motion of no confidence may know what he is up against. Making vague allegations without specifying the nature of misdemeanour renders the proposal itself a questionable exercise resting on arbitrariness. Such a motion is invalid and illegal. 4. The Court has examined the proposal which was considered at the meeting on a motion of no confidence. Counsel has been unable to specify on what exactly the Pramukh was supposed to answer when the misdemeanours or allegations against him have not been spelled out with specific instances. If this becomes a general practice, it will play up havoc with the Panchayats recently rendered functional in Bihar. 5. In any case, this Court has held in the matter of Smt. Shyama Devi V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. : L.P.A. No. 488 of 2002 [ 2002(2) PLJR 765 ] that for the first two years a motion of no confidence cannot be permitted. 6. For a different reason the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of learned Judge on the writ petition. 7. Appeal dismissed.