ORDER : In C.W.J.C.No.5018 of 2010, originally there were two petitioners who are respectively Adhyakshya and Upadhyakshya of Siwan Zila Parishad, as constituted under the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. They had challenged the convening of special meeting for considering no confidence motion against them. During pendency of the writ petition, the no confidence motion was brought. In the no confidence motion so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned i.e. Nand Prasad Chauhan who was the Adhyakshya, the motion could not be passed against him and as such he withdrew from the writ petition. Thereafter, as motion had being passed against petitioner no.2, the Upadhyakshya, fresh elections were held in which Minu Sinha, Upadhyakshya contested and lost. In this circumstances, Mr. S.B.K. Mangalan, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdraw the writ petition, as aforesaid. Leave was granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The second writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No.6266 of 2010 has been filed by one of the members of the Siwan Zila Parishad challenging the decision of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan in holding that in the special meeting of the Zila Parishad, no confidence motion was not passed as against Nand Prasad Chauhan, the Adhyakshya, who is respondent no.43 in this writ petition and was petitioner no.1 in the first writ petition. Mr. Y.V. Giri appears for the writ petitioner, Mr. S.B.K.Manglan appears for respondent no.43, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar appears for Zila Parishad and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh appears for the members supporting Mr. Giri as against respondent no.43. Having considered and with their consent, the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Y.V. Giri and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsels urge that Section 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 in so far as removal of Adhyakshya or Upadhyakshya by vote of no confidence motion is concerned should be read in a meaningful manner that is to say that where the expression used is “majority of total number of directly elected members” it should be read as “majority of total number of members present and voting”. It is subsequently submitted that expression should be further read as “majority of members directly elected and available for voting”. The significance of this change of terminology will be seen when the facts are examined. On the other hand, Mr. It is subsequently submitted that expression should be further read as “majority of members directly elected and available for voting”. The significance of this change of terminology will be seen when the facts are examined. On the other hand, Mr. S.B.K. Manglan submits that where the word an expression used by the legislature are plain, simple and unambiguous clear in themselves the golden rule of interpretation applies and the meaning as ordinarily understood should be given to the word and expression used therein. He further submits that once the legislature has spoken, it is not for the Court to become wiser. The facts are that a requisition was made for convening a special meeting to consider no confidence motion against the Adhyakshya and Upadhyakshya of the Zila Parishad. On the date of meeting, the Adhyakshya and Upadhyakshya did not participate and were not present. 21 elected members were present. The total number of elected members it is not dispute is 41. When the resolution was put to vote, by secret ballot, so far as the Adhyakshya is concerned, 20 votes were caste in favour of the no confidence motion and one vote against the no confidence motion. Thus, in a house of 41 elected members, only 20 were in favour of no confidence motion against the Adhyakshya, which obviously was less than the majority. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan accordingly held that the resolution as against the Adhyakshya was not passed. But when it comes to Upadhyakshya equation changed. All 21 unanimously voted in favour of no confidence motion and thus, 21 members out of the elected members of 40 have voted against the Upadhyakshya. It was held that the Upadhyakshya lost the confidence of the house. It is the decision on the first count that is challenged by Mr. Giri and Mr. G.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective parties. Mr. Y.V. Giri first points out that even though technically there are 41 elected members, 2 members must be excluded from the count bringing the elected membership to 39 and that being so then 20 members voting in favour of no confidence motion would constitute majority for removal of the Adhyakshya. The reason for excluding two members from the list of elected members is that one member has been declared a permanent absconder by a criminal court. The reason for excluding two members from the list of elected members is that one member has been declared a permanent absconder by a criminal court. He has remained absent from more than 3 consecutive meetings in the past. The second member was in judicial custody and as such could not vote. On these facts, Mr. Giri submits that so far as the first, the absconder is concerned, there are legal fetters on his ability to participate in any meeting being an absconder, if that being so, he has to be excluded from the elected members. In my view, this submission is misconceived for the simple reason that the legislature nowhere provides that once a person is declared an absconder, he ceases to be a member. It is his personal disability, which stops him from exercising the powers of an elected members but he nevertheless remain an elected members. Thus, the submission cannot be accepted. Coming to the second i.e. the elected member who was in judicial custody, the same argument is advanced that being in custody, he suffers from disability and the argument being the same, the answer of the Court is the same. It is his personal disability to come, but he nevertheless remains an elected member. Thus, the contention as raised by Mr. Giri cannot be accepted and the membership of the house remains 41. So far as the contention with regards to member remaining absent for three consecutive meeting is concerned, in view of Section 70(4) it only give a ground to the State Government to cancel his membership but till such time as it is not cancelled, he continues to be a member and eligible to vote. He cannot be excluded from the count. Now, I must consider the submission as made on behalf of Ganesh Prasad Singh. He submits that Section 70(4)(i) provides that there shall be no quorum for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion. He wants the Court to read this alongwith the substantive provision of majority of total number of directly elected members together to give meaning that the expression “directly elected members” should be read” as members present and voting” and thus, he submits that the expression should be interpreted by the Court as majority of members present and voting. I am afraid the argument, is contrary to the settled golden rule of interpretation of statutes. I am afraid the argument, is contrary to the settled golden rule of interpretation of statutes. The statute does not contemplate of any ambiguity. It does not suffer from vagueness. It is clear. It is certain. Once that is so, then giving any other meaning to it become meaningless because the meaning is plain and simple without any confusion. The Court cannot create a ghost and then find ways and means to kill the ghost. Mr. Manglan is correct in submitting that when the legislature have spoken in clear terms it is not for the Court to become wiser and read the provisions otherwise. Here, I may point out two things. This statute while dealing with the meetings in general has provided that decision in a meeting would be by simple majority of members present and voting but when we come to a special meeting of no confidence, the legislature has departed and used the expression “majority of members elected”. The departure being intentional and not by chance, the intention of the legislature which has to be respected by the court. Thus, it is impermissible to read the phrase “majority of the total member elected members” in any other manner. The second aspect, I would like to point out is with regard to provision of no quorum in this meeting. It is incorrect to say that there is no quorum for this meeting because quorum is implicit therein. The statute provides that majority of elected members. Thus, for any resolution to be taken up simple majority of elected members have to be present. In the present case, there being 40 elected members, the minimum presence would be 21. That itself becomes the quorum because if only 20 were present, the resolution could never been passed because that was less than the majority. Thus, in my view, quorum is unambiguously provided. The expression that “no quorum is required” is only to making it explicit what was already implicit in the Section. Thus, there is no warrant in the submission that the provision should be construed differentially from the plain and simple meaning, as apparent from the provisions. This writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.