JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General No. 11 for the State and Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate for the appearing private respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 8.9.2008 by which the special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner-Pramukh of the Raxaul Panchayat Samiti was fixed on 16.9.2008 and also the subsequent resolution taken in the said special meeting by the Panchayat Samiti by which the no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed and further the subsequent election of respondent no. 16 on the said vacant post of Pramukh. 3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel has raised two points in support of the case of the petitioner. It is firstly submitted that the notice dated 8.9.2008 was only addressed to the directly elected members and the other ex-officio members of the Panchayat Samiti were not issued the notice. It is submitted that although the said members do not have the right to vote in the special meeting but have the right to participate so as to influence the members who are entitled to exercise their right to vote. The said contention is being noticed only to be rejected in view of the point having been already decided to the contrary by a detailed order dated 27.11.2008 passed in CWJC No. 11518/2008 (Suryadeo Kumar & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. and its analogous case), wherein it was held as follows: "Thus on a consideration of the entire matters, this Court is of the view that the notice for special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion is required to be sent only to the directly elected members who have right to participate and vote in the said motion and not the ex-officio members." 4. The other and principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the requisition was presented before the petitioner-Pramukh on 12.8.2008 which she had rejected by order dated 25.8.2008 on the ground that the signatures on the said requisition were forged and had accordingly directed the Executive Officer to enquire into the matter and ensure that the requisition was signed by the genuinely directly elected members in his presence. It is submitted that thereafter instead of proceeding with the said requisition a further requisition was presented before the Up-Pramukh for convening the special meeting which was not signed by two of the earlier members but was signed by another member who was not a requisitionist in the earlier requisition dated 12.8.2008. On the basis of the said requisition the Up-Pramukh fixed the date of the special meeting on 16.9.2008 and pursuant to the same the special meeting was held. It is submitted by learned counsel that the same being a fresh requisition, it is invalid and illegal since it has neither been addressed nor presented before the Pramukh and would therefore be violative of Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. In support of the same, learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Nirmala Singh and Another V/s. State of Bihar and Others: 2006(1) PLJR 129 , para 2 of which is quoted below: "Having produced Annexure-1 and having failed to explain how he got it, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that he did not receive the original of the Annexure-1 at the time when a copy of Annexure-1 was served upon the Executive Officer. The petitioner did not convene a meeting as he was requested by Annexure-1. The req-uisitionists thereupon requested the Executive Officer to issue a notice and the Executive Officer, without keeping on record evidence of service of Annexure-1 to the petitioner, issued the notice convening the meeting and thereby acted improperly. The Act obliges the requisitionists to make the requisition a valid requisition to submit the same to the Pramukh. Unless the requisition is submitted to the Pramukh, the requisition itself is invalid. Without serving the requisition to the Pramukh, the requisitionists cannot ask the Executive Officer to convene the meeting." 5. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 11 as also learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the letter dated 8.9.2008 addressed to the Up-Pramukh was not a fresh requisition but merely a request to the Up-Pramukh to fix the date of the special meeting. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 11 as also learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the letter dated 8.9.2008 addressed to the Up-Pramukh was not a fresh requisition but merely a request to the Up-Pramukh to fix the date of the special meeting. It is pointed out that in the said letter it was clearly mentioned that earlier the requisition had been presented before the Pramukh but she has failed to convene the meeting within 15 days and in the said circumstances, request was made to the Up-Pramukh to call the meeting. Reference was made in this regard to the provisions of Section 44(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act also and accordingly the request was made to fix the date for considering the no confidence motion against the Pramukh. 6. In this regard learned Additional Advocate General also refers to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which is the relevant part of the file in which the entire matter was dealt with in order to show that after the rejection by, the Pramukh, the subsequent request of the members was placed by the Executive Officer before the Up-Pramukh for fixing a date and he accordingly fixed the date. The notes of the Executive Officer were put up referring to the notes of the Up-Pramukh on the subsequent letter dated 8.9.2008 itself and accordingly the date was fixed by the Up-Pramukh. 7. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the subsequent letter dated 8.9.2008 addressed to the Up- Pramukh, although not very precisely and succinctly worded, but was in effect a request to fix the date on the failure of the Pramukh to perform her statutory duty for convening the special meeting within fifteen days of the requisition being served upon her. Although the detailed charges are also mentioned in the said request but both in the beginning of the said letter and in the last part of it reference is made to the earlier requisition and the failure of the Pramukh to call the meeting. The same clearly shows the intention of the members that it was a request to the Up-Pramukh for fixing the date of the meeting. The same clearly shows the intention of the members that it was a request to the Up-Pramukh for fixing the date of the meeting. It is true that under the provisions of the Act one-third of the directly elected members, whether original requisitionists or not, have independent powers of fixing the date of meeting apart from the power of the Up-Pramukh, but that does not mean that a request made to the Up- Pramukh would amount to a fresh requisition by them. Considering the fact that the provisions of the Act have been mentioned and the requisition dated 12.8.2008 was addressed and presented to the Pramukh, it is evident that the members were aware that requisition has to be made to the Pramukh and the subsequent letter dated 8.9.2008 was merely a request to the Up-Pramukh to fix the date of the special meeting for considering the no confidence motion. 8. In the above circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that the letter dated 8.9.2008 was a second requisition. That being the position, the Up-Pramukh has rightly, in terms of the power conferred upon him by Section 44(3)(i) of the Act, fixed the date of the special meeting on 16.9.2008 in which the motion of no confidence has been passed against the petitioner. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed.