Judgment 1. The two appellants, being the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad, have filed the present appeal against the order dated 26-9-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application being CWJC No. 5204 of 2003 filed by them challenging the requisition dated 22-5-2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ application) for convening a special meeting for expressing want of confidence in them and the letter No. 57 dated 1-6-2003 issued by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Annexure-9 to the writ application) for convening the special meeting for the said purpose on 14-6-2003. 2. As we propose to agree with the order passed by the learned Single Judge the factual matrix will be given in brief. 3. The appellants No. 1 and 2 were elected as a Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad) in the meeting held on 10th June, 2001. Within six months of assumption of office by them, some of the members of Parishad moved a motion of no confidence against them which was considered in the specially convened meeting held on 6-12-2001 and the no confidence motion failed. Again on 22-5-2003, 16 members of the Parishad filed a petition before the Chairman, appellant No. 1 stating the reasons for no confidence in the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Parishad and requested him to convene the special meeting for the said purpose vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. In the said petition they have given the instances of the omissions and commissions by the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman for expressing no confidence. 4. It is admitted position that appellant No. 1, the Chairman, received the aforesaid requisition. Thereafter on 28-5-2003 he made a note in the file that four members who have signed the requisition, namely, Chandramani Devi, Sanu Devi, Rameshwar Bhuiya and Jag Narayan Singh had stated before him on the date of filing of the requisition itself that their signatures in the requisition are forged one and thereafter the appellant No. 1 - Chairman constituted a five members Committee to go into the said matter and fixed 5th June, 2003 as a date for appearance of the aforesaid members before the said Committee. 5. 5. When the District Magistrate, respondent No. 3 came to know that a requisition has been filed, he made an inquiry from the Chief Executive Officer of the Parishad as to whether special meeting has been convened or not, after the receipt of the requisition by the 16 members in terms of the provisions contained u/s. 68(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Chief Executive Officer informed that no meeting has been requisitioned. On the other hand, the Chairman has constituted a committee to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the four members as stated above. The Chief Executive Officer also informed that no notice has been given in terms of the said provision for convening the meeting. Thereafter, the District Magistrate in exercise of power vested u/s. 68(4) of the Act convened the special meeting for discussion on the no confidence motion and fixed 14th June, 2003 as a date. Thereafter the writ application being CWJC No. 5204 of 2003 was filed which has been dismissed resulting into the filing of the present appeal. 6. As the appellants have challenged the requisition for no confidence motion as Well as the power of the District Magistrate to convene the meeting to consider no confidence motion it will be apt to refer to the statutory provisions having on the said controversy. 7. After the amendment of the Constitution by seventy-third amendment Act, 1992, incorporating the Panchayats in Part IX of the Constitution, the Act has been enacted to given effect to the constitutional mandate. The provisions with regard to resignation of Adhyaksha (Chairman) and Up-Adhyaksha (Vice-Chairman) have been provided u/s. 68 of the Act. The relevant provisions for the purpose of the present case are Sub-sec. s (4) and (5) of sec. 68 which are as follows: "(4) Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the territorial constituencies of the Zila Parishad, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-fifth of the total member of the Zila Parishad and shall be delivered to the Adkhyakshas. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-fifth of the total member of the Zila Parishad and shall be delivered to the Adkhyakshas. The Adhyaksha shall within 7 days from the date of receipt of the requisition convene a special meeting of the Zila Parishad. The meeting shall be held on a day not letter than 15 days from the date of issue of the notice of the meeting. The meeting shall be presided over by the Adhyaksha if the motion is against the Up-adhyaksha, if it is against the Adhyaksha the Up-Adhyaksha shall preside over the meeting and if it is against Adhyaksha the Up-Adhyaksha both then the District Magistrate shall preside over the meeting. In case of failure to convene the meeting by the Adhyaksha the District Magistrate shall convene the meeting in the same manner and the meeting shall be presided by him. (5) If the motion of no confidence against the Adhyaksha or the Up-Adhyaksha or both is once rejected no fresh motion of no confidence against the Adhyaksha or the Up-Adhyaksha or both as the case may be shall be brought before the Zila Parisnad within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion." 8. According to the said provision if a vote of no confidence is passed against them by a majority of the total number of elected members of the territorial jurisdiction of the Parishad in a meeting specially convened for that purpose, then they will be deemed to have vacated their office. The requisition for calling the special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-fifth of the total members of the Zila Parishad. The said requisition has to be delivered to the Chairman who is required to convene a special meeting of the Parishad within seven days from the date of requisition. The meeting has to be held not later than 15 days from the date of issue of the notice of the meeting. The meeting shall be presided over by the Chairman in case the motion is against the Vice-Chairman. If the same is against the Chairman, then the meeting has to be presided over by the Vice-Chairman. If the motion is against both the office-bearers, namely, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, then the District Magistrate shall preside over the meeting. The meeting shall be presided over by the Chairman in case the motion is against the Vice-Chairman. If the same is against the Chairman, then the meeting has to be presided over by the Vice-Chairman. If the motion is against both the office-bearers, namely, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, then the District Magistrate shall preside over the meeting. On failure of the Chairman to convene the meeting, the meeting has to be convened by the District Magistrate in the same manner and he has also to preside over the meeting. 9. According to Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 68 of the Act, once the motion of no confidence against the aforesaid two office bearers is rejected, no fresh motion of no confidence against them shall be brought within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. 10. The total number of members of the Zila Parishad is 48 and as such the requisition for convening the special meeting for expressing no confidence in the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman shall be signed by not less than 10 members which will represent the one-fifth of the total numbers of the Zila Parishad. Though the motion of no confidence shall be passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Zila Parishad, once a requisition is signed by the requisitioning number of persons and presented to the Chairman then under the aforesaid provision meeting has to be convened within seven days and the meeting has to be held within the period as specified in the aforesaid section. The law maker has not vested any power in the Chairman to withhold the requisition on one ground or the other. The reason is very obvious. If a requisition has been filed for discussion of no confidence motion against the office bearer then the members of the Zila Parishad have to consider the acts and omissions as alleged in the petition for expressing want of confidence in the specially convened meeting and thereafter either vote of no confidence will be passed or it will be rejected. After the requisition for considering the no confidence motion, special meeting has to be convened and no other formalities are required to be gone into. After the requisition for considering the no confidence motion, special meeting has to be convened and no other formalities are required to be gone into. Thus, the Chairman or if he fails to convene the meeting then the District Magistrate has no power to withhold the requisition and postpone the meeting oh one ground or the other in case the requisition is in order in terms of the aforesaid provision. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that once the motion of no confidence has failed in a duly convened meeting held on 6-12-2001, the motion of no confidence cannot be again brought within a period of two years from the said date. 12. As stated above, Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 68 of the Act puts a bar only for period of one year. However, according to learned counsel for the appellants, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shyama Devi V/s. State of Bihar, (LPA No. 488 of 2002) disposed of 6-5-2002, which has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the memo of appeal and in the case of Lalan Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 2002(3) PLJR 201 , has held that the it will not be appropriate to bring the motion of no confidence against the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman within two years of their being returned to their offices. 13. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shyama Devi (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) (CC 6459 of 2002) which was disposed of on 23-8-2002 and the Apex Court held that the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order are mere suggestions. Thus, in view of the said observations, the directions given in the case of Smt. Shyama Devi (supra) cannot be held to be law laid down by this Court. Otherwise also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Shyama Dew (supra) does not help the case of the appellants as in that case it was clearly held that after the motion of no confidence fails, then one year from the date of such a motion of confidence being rejected, another motion of no confidence may not be considered. Otherwise also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Shyama Dew (supra) does not help the case of the appellants as in that case it was clearly held that after the motion of no confidence fails, then one year from the date of such a motion of confidence being rejected, another motion of no confidence may not be considered. The statutory provision as contained u/s. 68(5) of the Act clearly provides that after a motion of no confidence is rejected another motion cannot be brought within a period of one year from the date of such rejection. 14. The statutory provision is clear with regard to bringing the subsequent motion of no confidence and the requisition in this case as admittedly was made after expiry of the period of one year. This apart, the judgments relied upon by the appellants do not support their case in view of the fact that the observations made in the case of Smt. Shyama Dew by the Division Bench of this Court have been held, to be mere suggestions of the Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the appellants is not worth acceptance. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that under Sec. 68(4) of the Act when the Chairman does not convene the meeting then the District Magistrate has to convene the meeting in the same manner, meaning thereby the earlier requisition for convening the special meeting for no confidence lapses and a fresh requisition has to be made before the District Magistrate and thereafter the same manner as provided in the case of convening the meeting by the Chairman has to be followed. 16. This Court does not find any substance in the said submission for the reasons stated hereinafter. Once a requisition has been filed expressing want of confidence which under the aforesaid provision has to be delivered/presented to the Chairman, he is required to convene a meeting and if the no confidence motion is against him as well as against the Vice-Chairman then the meeting has to be presided over by the District Magistrate. In case the Chairman fails to requisition the meeting within the period and in the same manner as provided under Sub-sec. 4 of sec. 68 of the Act, then the duty is cast upon the District Magistrate to convene and preside over the meeting. In case the Chairman fails to requisition the meeting within the period and in the same manner as provided under Sub-sec. 4 of sec. 68 of the Act, then the duty is cast upon the District Magistrate to convene and preside over the meeting. If the Chairman fails to discharge his duties the requisition does not lapse in the eye of law. It is still surviving and only the manner is changed so far convening of the meeting is concerned. If the submission made on behalf of the appellants is accepted, in that case the requisition will be deemed to have failed and a second requisition cannot be brought within one year from that date. Interpretation as put by the learned counsel for the appellants, if accepted, will give a free hand to the Chairman to violate the mandate of the law as provided u/s. 68(4) of the Act and remain in office by adopting dubious and unauthorised methods. The aforesaid Section means that if the Chairman fails to convene the meeting then the District Magistrate will convene the same within the period specified therein at a place and time mentioned in the notice. The same manner does not mean that a fresh requisition has to be filed before the District Magistrate. The same requisition which was filed before the Chairman has to be dealt with by the District Magistrate in the same manner as the Chairman would have done it. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was no question on failure on the part of the Chairman to convene the meeting, on the other hand when four members complained about forging their signatures, to verify that fact he constituted a committee to look into matter. No such power is vested in the Chairman once the requisition with regard to want of confidence is delivered to him. As stated above, he is required to convene the meeting and on his failure the District Magistrate has to perform the same act. The question whether the signatures of the aforesaid members are forged or not can be gone into the special meeting held for the purpose of expressing want of confidence. As stated above, he is required to convene the meeting and on his failure the District Magistrate has to perform the same act. The question whether the signatures of the aforesaid members are forged or not can be gone into the special meeting held for the purpose of expressing want of confidence. This apart, even if the names of four members are excluded from the list of the requisition for convening a special meeting for the said purpose, still the members are more than 1/5th required for making a requisition for convening a meeting for expressing want of confidence. The said act of the Chairman was nothing but a divide to postpone the consideration of matter in specially convened meeting in terms of the provisions of sec. 68(4) of the Act. Thus, this point is also devoid of any substance. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that he has challenged the vires of the provisions of sec. 68(4) of the Act and other provisions of the Act by filing a separate writ application and as such he is not pressing the aforesaid point raised in this case. 19. After having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find no merit in any of the submissions. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The District Magistrate will now proceed in accordance with law.