ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Chief Executive Officer, Sarmera Panchayat Samiti, District – Nalanda. 2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, challenges the authority of the Chief Executive Officer (respondent No 5) to call a special meeting to consider vote of no confidence against her. It appears, during pendency of the writ petition, the meeting was so called and the petitioner has been voted out. Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 44 (3) (1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 2006, the mandatory provision is that a Pramukh or Up Pramukh can be removed by vote of no confidence only if first a notice is given by less than not a one-third of members and is presented to the Pramukh with a copy to the Chief Executive Officer laying out the charges and calling the Pramukh to fix a date for the special meeting. In the writ petition, it is clearly stated and, in particular, in paragraphs – 9, 10 and 11 that the requisition was never presented to the Pramukh, as provided by the aforesaid provision, instead the requisition was sent to the Chief Executive Officer who then forwarded it to the petitioner. That was against the mandatory provisions of the section and that being so, the very initiation was without legal foundation. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Block Development Officer –cum- Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti in which though various other paragraphs have been answered, there is no answer to paragraphs – 10 and 11 of the writ petition in which specific averment to the above effect has been made. 4. In fact, a reference to the requisition would itself show that though it is addressed to the Pramukh, it is forwarded to her through the Chief Executive Officer. In my view, this is not compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 44 (3) (1) of the Act. There are several judgments of this Court and Division Bench of this Court that the procedure prescribed under Section 44 (3) (1) of the Act is mandatory and failure to comply with the mandatory provisions renders the meeting held pursuant thereto void. 5. In such a situation, I have no option but to hold that the special meeting requisitioned as against the petitioner is of no legal effect. 5. In such a situation, I have no option but to hold that the special meeting requisitioned as against the petitioner is of no legal effect. The resolution also would, therefore, have no sanctity in law. Accordingly, the resolution, as passed in the meeting so fixed pursuant to the requisition, cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed.