JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner had come to this Court challenging the conduct and the actions taken by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Arwal in the present case which was not only against the statutory provisions which he was supposed to hold but destruction of the very concept of grass root democracy and Local Self Government. This matter relates to Zila Parishad, Arwal. Once the Zila Parishad is constituted by elections of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, in middle of the term, they can be removed only by a vote of no confidence. This is governed by Section 70 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 . A plain reading thereof, would show that any conflict or confusion that the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall be deemed to be evicted from office if they have failed in the special meeting called for the said purpose. How this meeting is called for is very clearly and unambiguously stated therein. It clearly states that not less than 1/5th of total number of directly elected members shall requisition such a special meeting and file such a requisition to the Adhyaksha with a copy to the District Magistrate, the Adhyaksha shall within 7 days of the receipt of such requisition convene the special meeting which meeting shall not be held later than 15 days from the issuance of notice in this regards. The meeting would be presided by the Adhyaksha or in his absence Upadhyaksha or in absence of both, the District Magistrate. If the Adhyaksha does not convene a meeting within the period so prescribed, it is stipulated that the District Magistrate shall convene the meeting in the same manner and the meeting shall be presided by him. It is further specifically provided that no such meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. Sub-section (iv) of Section 70(4) provides that the reason/ charges on the basis of which no confidence shall be moved shall be clearly mentioned in the notice of the meeting called to consider the no confidence motion. I have extensively quoted from the provisions only because in every letter of the word of the provision the Collector has seen to it that the law is violated. I have extensively quoted from the provisions only because in every letter of the word of the provision the Collector has seen to it that the law is violated. This could only because of two reasons either the Collector lacks the competence/ administrative capability or the Collector in a concluded deliberate manner is hand in glove with the elected member and wants to ensure that no meeting for consideration of no confidence is taken out. This is clear from the facts that will be noted hereunder. 2. It will be mentioned that the Collector has filed a counter affidavit on request of the Court. The Chief Secretary filed another counter affidavit only for the purposes of record otherwise it serves no purpose. Respondent No. 7, Adhyaksha has filed a counter affidavit. 3. The challenge of the petitioner is that he was one of the persons who has requisitioned the special meeting which fact is not denied. The Adhyaksha/Chairman d d not call for meeting as he was in law required to do. That is not denied. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate was then requested as per law to call the meeting. That is also not denied. The Collector abdicates his function and asked the DDC to enquire and report, where this discretion in the Collector was, is not known but obviously he was playing for sometime. On receipt of report of DDC he then issued notice fixing the meeting on 26th October, 2009 and in deliberate ignorance of the provisions of Section 70(4)(iv) does not disclose the ground as required by law for convening the no confidence meeting thereby giving opportunity to the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman. If they were to be removed to challenge the notice itself, is being without jurisdiction. Then, as per the counter affidavit of the Collector-cum- District Magistrate the Chairman files a petition before him as if it is the Collector- cum-District Magistrate who has to decide the no confidence and is an Appellate Authority over the elected body; as this Court has apprehended the very first objection he takes that notice convening special meeting is invalid, as it gives no ground. Then, various justifications are being given to invalidate the calling of the special meeting. The Collector supposedly acting as an Appellate Authority is impressed by the show cause of the Chairman. Then, various justifications are being given to invalidate the calling of the special meeting. The Collector supposedly acting as an Appellate Authority is impressed by the show cause of the Chairman. He realizes that a mistake has been done, not that a mistake has been done by issuing a wrong notice but the mistake has been done by issuing notice at all. This Court wonders from where he gets this jurisdiction. The Collector is not Appellate Authority to decide matters which are required to be decided at the floor of the House. The Collector must realize that once Local Self Government is legally established through mandate of the Constitution then it is the Local Self Government body that would function in the manner required by law and the Collector or the District Administration lose their jurisdiction, power and authority to that extent. They must realize this legal reality, the sooner they do the better for them and better of this State. I may point here that notwithstanding the mandate of law on the District Magistrate-cum-Collector to call the meeting. Again, he delegates the power to the DDC and directs him to call a meeting. Court fails to understand how he can even do it, which is in direct conflict in law. Now, a mistake having been committed, it is rectified by cancelling the meeting altogether. The mistake is further compounded when having cancelled the meeting no steps are taken by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector to reconvene special meeting in a proper lawful manner and leaves the matter at that meaning thereby abdicates his authority which in law confers on him to call the meeting in favour of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman whose removal is sought for in accordance with law. This is why, I have held and I hold that the Collector has deliberately played into the hands of the Adhyaksha and the Upadhyaksha. 4. I am left with no option but to hold that the order of the Collector recalling the order fixing 26.10.2009 as the date for special meeting is set aside but as the date has crossed, I direct that within one week from today the Collector shall convene a special meeting of the Arwal Zila Parishad. The notice convening the meeting shall contain true copy of the detail of the requisition for such a meeting, as sent by the petitioner. The notice convening the meeting shall contain true copy of the detail of the requisition for such a meeting, as sent by the petitioner. The Adhyaksha would ensure that the meeting would be duly held and the Collector-cum- District Magistrate would preside over the said meeting, which would be held on 25th November, 2009. 5. Why this Court has used strong expression all along because the number of cases that are coming to this Court challenging the action of the District Authorities, all these matters clearly show that either the District Authorities are not educating themselves the law in this regard or they have educated themselves then they are directly playing into the hands of either of the party. The Constitution was amended long back recognizing and laying down the principles of Local Self-Government. It was public Government of the people, for the people and by the people and the Collector Raj had to end. All major decisions right from Gram Panchayat Raj level up to the Corporation level are to be taken by Local Self-Government, elected body by the local citizens, which were earlier taken by the Collectors or the bureaucracy. The sooner this scheme is accepted by the bureaucracy the better for the democracy and for rule of law. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is, thus, disposed of.