ORDER The petitioner was the Pramukh of Nabinagar Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad. A valid requisition was submitted for convening a special meeting for consideration of a resolution whether to remove the petitioner from the said post or not. After receipt of the requisition, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have such a meeting convened and for that matter to have a notice to be issued by Executive Officer attached to her Panchayat. On 2nd December, 2002 by a writing the petitioner instructed the Executive Officer to convene the meeting on 10th December, 2002. Accordingly, the meeting was convened by a notice dated 3rd December, 2002 by which the meeting was convened on 10th December, 2002. The notice did not give seven clear days notice as is required by sub section 4 of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 10th December, 2002, the meeting as was convened, Was held and the petitioner participated in the said meeting and thereupon filed the present writ petition challenging the out come of the meeting held on 10th December, 2002. 2. The petitioner is challenging the proceeding of the said meeting on four grounds. The first ground as aforesaid is that seven clear days notice was not given by the notice dated 3rd December, 2002 by which the meeting was convened on 10th December, 2002. It appears to me that by writing the letter dated 2nd December, 2002, the petitioner had fixed the date of the meeting on 10th December, 2002 and issued instructions to the Executive Officer to convene the meeting on that date. She did not ask the Executive officer to convene the meeting by giving seven clear days notice as was contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Executive Officer on 3rd December, 2002 issued the notice and convened the meeting on 10th December, 2002 as was desired by the petitioner. It is true that the notice was short and was not of seven clear days, but the fact remains that the same was brought into existence at the specific direction of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner cannot make any grievance in relation to the same. It is true that the notice was short and was not of seven clear days, but the fact remains that the same was brought into existence at the specific direction of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner cannot make any grievance in relation to the same. Even otherwise, once the reason for stipulating seven clear days notice is look at, it would make it amply clear that the legislature wanted to give seven days time to the members in order to enable them to organize their affairs in such a manner so that they can attend the meeting on the date the same is required to be fixed. The petitioner having had directed that the meeting be held on 10th December, 2002, it must be deemed that she had organized her affairs in such a way so that she can attend the meeting on 10th December, 2002. Looked at from that point of view also the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice for the shortage of the period of the notice. 3. It was next contended that in terms of Sub-section 4 of Section 44 of the Act, it was incumbent on the part of the Executive Officer to include the motion or the proposition mentioned in the written request i.e. the requisition for such meeting and that the same had not been mentioned in the notice. The request in the requisition was for removal of the petitioner. The notice specifically says that the meeting is being convened for that purpose. The requirement of sub section 4 was, thus, adhered to. 4. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that no requisition could be submitted for seeking her removal within a period of two years from the date of' her appointment. In support of the said contention, the petitioner relied upon a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Shyama Devi Vs. The State of Bihar. The Division Bench noted that in terms of Section 18 of the Act, a Mukhia cannot be removed from his office within two years of his appointment, whereas in terms of the Section 42 a Pramukh or a Up-pramukh may be removed at any point of time. The same was also the case in so far as Adhyasksha and Upadhyasksha are concerned in terms of Sectior 68 of the Act. The same was also the case in so far as Adhyasksha and Upadhyasksha are concerned in terms of Sectior 68 of the Act. The Court felt that there should be uniformity and directed until such time the appropriate legislation is not made a request for removal of Uppramukh and Pramukh cannot be made within a period of two years from their appointment. This judgment was rendered on 6th May, 2000. As would be evidenced from paragraph-8 of the Judgment, the direction contained therein was to continue only for a period of three months. The force of that Judgment, therefore, came to an end on 6th August, 2000. It does not appear that the direction contained in the said. Judgment was continued after 6th August, 2000. In the instant case, the meeting was held much after 6th August, 2000 and accordingly that Judgment has no application at all. Be that as it may in order to take shelter under the said Judgment, one is required to plead and show as to the date when the petitioner had been appointed and how the requisition was submitted before expiry of two years of the appointment. No particular in relation thereto has been furnished. 5. The last contention of the petitioner is that Section 44 of the Act requires giving of notice to all members of the Panchayat Samiti and section 34 thereof directs y l1at would be the composition of the Panchayat Samiti. It was contended, which is also not disputed, that the notice on the subject meeting was issued only to the elected members and not to other members who by reason of by Section 34 of the Act became members of the Samiti. Sub section 2 of section 34 makes it abundantly clear that every member of the Panchayat Samiti shall have the right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti but in case of election and removal of Pramukh and Up-pramukh only the members elected shall have the right to vote. That makes it abundantly clear that when a meeting is being held for the purpose of removal of a Pramukh or Up-pramukh, the persons who are of importance and accordingly should be notified, are the elected members. Mere non-service of notice upon totally unimportant persons having no say in the matter would not vitiate the proceeding at all. That makes it abundantly clear that when a meeting is being held for the purpose of removal of a Pramukh or Up-pramukh, the persons who are of importance and accordingly should be notified, are the elected members. Mere non-service of notice upon totally unimportant persons having no say in the matter would not vitiate the proceeding at all. In such view of the matter, the writ application fails and the same is dismissed.