JUDGEMENT Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. A supplementary counter-affidavit sworn on 4-12-2008 has been filed today on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stating that the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Govindpur, Nawada, respondent No. 5, tried to serve notices on respondent Nos. 10 and 16 but they refused to accept the same personally. Thereafter again an attempt was made by the police Sub Inspector, Govindpur Police Station to serve the notice upon respondent No. 10 but he was not at home and his family members refused to accept the notice on which the same was pasted at his home in presence of local Choukidar and two independent witnesses on 28-11-2008. 2. It is evident from the requisition (Annexure-1) that the said two respondent Nos. 10 and 16 are not among the requisitionists and being obviously men of the petitioner are conspiring with her so that the matter is delayed and she continues to get the benefit of the stay order passed by this Court on 26-9-2008. 3. In the above circumstances, since all the nine requisitionists have already entered appearance this Court does not consider the presence of respondent Nos. 10 and 16 as necessary in the present matter. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the appearing respondents and learned Counsel for the State. 5. The only ground taken by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 22-9-2008 (Annexure 3) fixing the date for considering the No Confidence Motion on 29-9-2008 against the petitioner Pramukh is in violation of the requirement of clear seven days notice as per mandatory provisions of Section 46(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 . 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the action of the petitioner Pramukh was taken in a, cunning manner. It is argued that deliberately the petitioner Pramukh had herself through her letter dated 22-9-2008 (Annexure K) fixed the date of the meeting on 29- 9-2008 so that she could approach this Court immediately thereafter and get the special meeting stayed as has been done in the present case. It is submitted that by playing such games the petitioner has managed to hold on to her post for a period of nearly five months. 7. It is submitted that by playing such games the petitioner has managed to hold on to her post for a period of nearly five months. 7. On a consideration of the materials on the record it is evident that there is substantial force in the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner herself by the said letter dated 22-9-2008 fixed the date of the meeting on 29-9-2008 and thereafter on 24-9-2008 she had filed the present writ application claiming violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act. Further the petitioner, with the support of respondent Nos. 10 and 16, has managed to delay the matter being heard by this Court, and consequently, continued to hold on to the post of Pramukh for this period. Such action of the petitioner is clearly an abuse of the process of this Court. 8. Since thi6 Court has already held repeatedly in a large number of cases that the provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act are mandatory, the notice dated 22-9-2008 fixing the date of the special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion on 29-9-2008 must go and it is, accordingly, quashed. However, it would be open to the Up-Pramukh or 1/3rd of the directly elected members to fix a fresh date of the special meeting complying with the provisions of the Act for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. 9. This Court also condemns the abuse of process of this Court by the petitioner and accordingly awards an exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) to be deposited by the petitioner with the Patna High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from today. 10. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.