JUDGEMENT Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the appearing respondents, learned Counsel for the State Election Commission and learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure- 3) of the no-confidence motion brought against him including the resolution of no-confidence passed therein and for other consequential orders. 3. The stand of the petitioner is that an undated requisition, which according to the petitioner was addressed only to the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Begusarai, was made in which subsequently by forgery and manipulation the name of the Pramukh was inserted above that of the Block Development Officer and further manipulation regarding fixing the date of the meeting on 21.7.2008 was also made. It is further alleged that the said requisition was placed before the Executive Officer on 11.7.2008 who himself fixed the date on 11.7.2008 and issued the notices (Annexure-1 series) fixing the date for considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner-Pramukh on 21.7.2008. Thereafter a meeting was convened on the said date. In the said meeting, the no-confidence motion was passed by 11 to 10 votes. It is alleged that the said result was brought about by tampering the members to vote in support of the no-confidence motion by the Executive Officer, in respect of which on the same date eleven members including the Up-Pramukh made their physical Parade before the District Magistrate, Begusarai and made him aware of the illegality and irregularity committed by the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. Thereafter enquiry was directed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai to be made by the Deputy Development Commissioner. In his report dated 26.7.2008, the Deputy Development Commissioner made certain adverse observations against the action of the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. It is further stated that the 11 directly elected members including the Up-Pramukh had also made a representation before the State Election Commission. 4. Learned Counsel also refers to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer in which the notes put up by the Executive Officer with respect to the requisition for no-confidence motion have also been annexed as Annexure -A which shows that the petitioner as the Pramukh has approved the same on 14.7.2008. 4. Learned Counsel also refers to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer in which the notes put up by the Executive Officer with respect to the requisition for no-confidence motion have also been annexed as Annexure -A which shows that the petitioner as the Pramukh has approved the same on 14.7.2008. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the said notes were never put up before the petitioner nor the petitioner had ever signed any such notes and the signature of the petitioner is not to be found in the same notes which are annexed as Annexure- 2 to the writ petition whereas the same is found in Annexure- A to the counter affidavit sworn by the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. It is alleged that the same is a forgery. It is further contended that even if for the sake of argument the same is assumed to be the signature of the petitioner made on 14.7.2008 then the Executive Officer will have much to answer as to how even before the petitioner-Pramukh had fixed the date he had issued notice dated 11.7.2008 to the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat Samiti for convening the no-confidence motion on 21.7.2008. The same according to learned Counsel clearly shows the manipulative role played by the Block Development Officer and his attempt at tampering with the documents even while the matter is pending before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel also submits that the notice itself does not contain reasons/charges on the basis of which the no-confidence motion is to be considered and the same is thus in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 . 6. Mr. Shri Prakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents does not seriously contest the fact that the notice dated 11.7.2008 being devoid of any reasons/charges is violative of the mandatory provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and further admits that even the requisition does not disclose any such reasons/charges. 7. In the above circumstances, it is evident that the entire proceedings would stand vitiated and the requisition (Annexure-1), the notice dated 11.7.2008 as also the proceedings held on the basis of the said illegal notice being contrary to law are liable to be quashed. They are accordingly quashed. 8. 7. In the above circumstances, it is evident that the entire proceedings would stand vitiated and the requisition (Annexure-1), the notice dated 11.7.2008 as also the proceedings held on the basis of the said illegal notice being contrary to law are liable to be quashed. They are accordingly quashed. 8. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the Executive Officer appears to have played a shady role in the matter and appropriate action needs to be taken against him by the higher authorities of the State. It is evident that the District Magistrate has got inquiries made in this regard but there is nothing on the record to show that thereafter appropriate action has been taken by him so as to maintain the sanctity of the Panchayat Raj Institution and the purity of the process of conducting such proceedings as that of a no-confidence motion. It is expected that appropriate action will be taken by the authorities of the State against the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Begusarai in accordance with law. Let the action be initiated in this regard within a period of two months from today. 9. This Court has also noticed the tendency of the District Officers to involve the State Election Commission in matters concerning no-confidence motion and the habit of the State Election Commission also to give advise and issue directions in such matters. They are reminded that the State Election Commission has no role to play in matters concerning the no-confidence motion which are internal affairs of the Panchayat institutions and only after the no-confidence motion is carried out and a vacancy arises that the State Election Commission comes into the picture for the purpose of filling up of such casual vacancy. It is expected that the State Election Commission shall not interfere in such internal affairs of the Panchayat Raj Institutions in future. 10. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed subject to the aforesaid directions and observations. 11. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Government Pleader No. 17 and Mr. R.S. Pradhan, learned Counsel for the State Election Commission.