Order Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 16552 of 2013 was elected as the Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Sirdala, Nawada (for short “Panchayat Samiti”) whereas the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2013 was elected as the Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. Both the writ applications have been filed questioning the sustainability/legality of the notice dated 17.8.2013 issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti whereby the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was convened on 26.8.2013 for consideration of no confidence motion against the Pramukh and the Up Pramukh. In the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 26.8.2013, the no confidence motion was discussed, put to vote and was carried through. The petitioners of both the applications have, therefore also assailed the proceeding of the said special meeting. 2. Since, common issues are involved in both the applications, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam appearing in support of C.W.J.C. No. 16552 of 2013, Mr. Arun Kumar in support of C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2013, Mr. Siyaram Shahi for the private respondents, Mr. Amit Shrivastava for the Commission and Counsel for the State. Parties have exchanged their pleadings. 4. Skeleton of facts providing the backdrop may first be noticed. The petitioners of both the writ applications were elected as Pramukh and Up Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti in the Panchayat Elections held in 2011. On a requisition submitted by the adequate/required number of electors, the special meeting was directed to be held on 26.8.2013 and accordingly, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti issued a notice dated 17.08.2013 (Annexure-2) requesting the members of the Panchayat Samiti to attend the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti convened on 26.8.2013 in the Prakhand Library Bhawan. Along with the notice, the copy of the requisition was also enclosed. The meeting was accordingly held on 26.08.2013 under the Chairmanship of one of the elected members namely Attaur Rahman wherein 14 of the total 21 elected members of the Panchayat Samiti participated in the discussion/debate and the voting. 14 members present thereat expressed their want of confidence in the petitioners and accordingly the motion was passed and the petitioners were unseated. 5. Mr. 14 members present thereat expressed their want of confidence in the petitioners and accordingly the motion was passed and the petitioners were unseated. 5. Mr. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner (in C.W.J.C. No. 16552 of 2013) has submitted that the requisition (Annexure-1) was not submitted/delivered to the Pramukh inasmuch as the same was not even addressed to the Pramukh. This is a clear breach of the provisions contained in Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”). As per these provisions, if any such requisition is filed and delivered to the Pramukh with a copy thereof to the Executive Officer and the Pramukh fails to convene the meeting within the stipulated time then only the special meeting could have been convened either under the orders of the Up Pramukh or on the basis of a further resolution to be passed by the required number of electors/voters. Since the requisition was not addressed and delivered to the petitioner, the subsequent proceeding shall vitiate in law. 6. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner (in C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2013) while adopting the said submission of Mr. Mangalam further contended that the notice (Annexure-2) issued by the respondent Executive Officer does not set out reasons/charges and as such, the same is in clear breach of the provisions contained in Section 44(3)(v) of the Act. If the notice issued to convene the special meeting has not been issued complying with the requirements of law as adumbrated in Section 44(3)(v) then the subsequent proceeding of special meeting shall become unsustainable in law. In support of the said contention, he has relied on Meena Yadav and Another versus The State of Bihar and Ors since reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 389 . 7. Mr. Siya Ram Shahi appearing on behalf of the private respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the requisition dated 16.07.2013 addressed to the Pramukh was presented before the Pramukh but she declined to accept and acknowledge the same. Similarly, the requisition was also filed before the Block Development Officer. The Executive Officer on receipt of the requisition placed the matter in file before the Pramukh on 22.7.2013 for fixing a date for holding of special meeting. Similarly, the requisition was also filed before the Block Development Officer. The Executive Officer on receipt of the requisition placed the matter in file before the Pramukh on 22.7.2013 for fixing a date for holding of special meeting. The Pramukh sat tight over the matter and on expiry of the statutory period of 15 days by a note dated 5.8.2013 returned the file with a note “Aawedan ke alok me niyamanusar karwai karen”. Since the statutory period had elapsed and the Pramukh had not fixed a date for holding of the special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion, the matter was placed before the Up Pramukh who under his note dated 16.08.2013 directed to convene the special meeting on 26.08.2013 for which the Executive Officer was directed to issue notice. In the light of the said order passed by the Up Pramukh on the file which was processed and presented for his order in terms of provisions of the Act, the Executive Officer issued the impugned notice (Annexure-2) on 17.8.2013 and convened the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 26.8.2013. While issuing the notice, the Executive Officer enclosed as enclosure copy of the resolution also for consumption of the members. After service of the said notice on all including the petitioners herein, the meeting was convened on the date and time fixed in the notice wherein the same was debated and put to vote. It has thus been submitted that no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. He also sought to differentiate on facts the present case from the case on which the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2013 has placed reliance. 8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. The impugned notice and the proceeding of the special meeting taken thereof have been challenged on two grounds. This Court would first consider the challenge to the said notice and the proceeding in the light of submission made by Mr. Mangalam which was adopted by the counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2013. The impugned notice and the proceeding of the special meeting taken thereof have been challenged on two grounds. This Court would first consider the challenge to the said notice and the proceeding in the light of submission made by Mr. Mangalam which was adopted by the counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2013. In order to better appreciate the contention of the petitioners, this Court would notice the relevant provisions contained in Section 44(3)(i) of the Act which reads thus:- “44(3)(i) A Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of the Pamchayat Samiti, by not less than one third of the total number of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies of the Pamchayat Samiti. The Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh. The Pramukh shall convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. If the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up- Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. The Executive Officer shall necessarily issue such notice in time and convene the meeting. No such meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. No quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion.” 9. It has been submitted that the requisition is mandated to be addressed to and first presented before the Pramukh. In case she fails to pass any order within the stipulated time, the same could have been processed by the Executive Officer for obtaining approval of the Up Pramukh. The said contention of the petitioner needs to be considered in the light of particular facts of the case. In case she fails to pass any order within the stipulated time, the same could have been processed by the Executive Officer for obtaining approval of the Up Pramukh. The said contention of the petitioner needs to be considered in the light of particular facts of the case. As per the petitioner, no such requisition addressed to the petitioner was filed/presented before her whereas the case of the respondent is that the requisition addressed to the petitioner was sought to be presented before her but she declined to accept/acknowledge. The requisition filed before the Executive Officer was thereafter processed and presented in file before the petitioner on 22.07.2013 for fixing a date for holding of the special meeting but she allowed the statutory period to almost lapse and by an endorsement in the file dated 5.8.2013 returned the same with the note already noticed above. 10. On perusal of the provisions of the Act, it appears that even if the requisition addressed to the Pramukh and is presented to her/him, the Pramukh is required to pass an order directing the Executive Officer to process and present the file for fixing of a date of holding of the special meeting. The Executive Officer is thereafter required to present the file for fixing a date of holding of the special meeting. The date of meeting, therefore, has to be fixed by an order to be passed by the Pramukh in the file. The law, therefore, has provided that in addition to the requisition submitted to the Pramukh, the same is also required to be filed before the Executive Officer enabling him to process the same and present first before the Pramukh for order. From the materials on record, it appears that the requisition presented before the Executive Officer was processed and presented before the Pramukh on 22.07.2013 but she did not pass any order thereon until 05.08.2013 when she returned the file with a note “Aawedan ke alok me niyamanusar karwai karen”. Since the period had elapsed, the file was presented before Up-Pramukh as per the provisions of the Act who fixed the date for holding of the meeting and directed for taking needful steps in furtherance thereof. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to hold that non-presentation of requisition under receipt/acknowledgement first before the Pramukh would prove fatal and vitiate the entire proceeding taken thereafter. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to hold that non-presentation of requisition under receipt/acknowledgement first before the Pramukh would prove fatal and vitiate the entire proceeding taken thereafter. The contention of Mr. Mangalam is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 11. Now, this Court adverts to the next limb of challenge to the sustainability of the special meeting wherein no confidence motion was passed. The notice dated 17.08.2013 issued by the Executive Officer enclosed therewith the copy of the requisition with a view to apprise the members of the Panchayat Samiti the reasons for which the no confidence motion was moved. The petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact. Contention of the petitioner(s) relying on Meena Yadav (supra) is that under the relevant provisions of the Act, an explicit obligation is cast upon the authority issuing the notice for special meeting to mention the reasons/charges therein. The purpose of this provision is not confined to giving/apprising the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh or the members of the Panchayat Samiti of the reasons/charges so as to comply with the requirement of natural justice. The purpose is clearly a much larger one to serve the fundamental purpose of democracy which requires free flow of relevant facts to all the members so that they may have a meaningful discussion or deliberation over the motion. This Court, therefore, in Meena Yadav (supra) held that the right of the members to know the reasons/charges from before is a valuable right breach whereof will result in failure of justice as well as breach of the mandate of law on rendering the subsequent process or proceeding unsustainable in law. This Court in the said report further held that the relevant provisions dealing with this aspect of the matter in the Act are mandatory and failure to comply therewith will render the notice and consequent meeting void. Relevant background facts out of which the said case arose was noticed in paragraph 2 thereof. The writ petitioners challenged the notice fixing the date of meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against them on the ground that the concerned notice did not contain any reason/charges as required under Sub-section 3(b) of Section 44 of the Act. Relevant background facts out of which the said case arose was noticed in paragraph 2 thereof. The writ petitioners challenged the notice fixing the date of meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against them on the ground that the concerned notice did not contain any reason/charges as required under Sub-section 3(b) of Section 44 of the Act. The Court further noticed that there was no dispute that the requisition submitted by required number of elected members contained the allegations/charges for which a meeting to consider no confidence motion was sought but the notice issued by the concerned officials did not embody those allegations/charges. The said case on reference was considered by the Division Bench since the learned Single Judge noticing two conflicting views expressed by this Court on analogous issue in Bindu Devi versus State of Bihar 2005 (4) PLJR 112 and Nirmala Singh versus State of Bihar 2006 (1) PLJR 129 . In the case of Nirmala Singh (supra), the petitioners who were Pramukh and Up-Pramukh succeeded in showing that the notice for the meeting to consider no confidence motion was defective as no reason in support of the motion was mentioned. However, the learned Judge held that the petitioners did not suffer on that account and no prejudice was caused to them because none of the petitioners attended the meeting. Subsequent to their removal, another meeting was held for filling up the vacancy caused due to their removal in which both the petitioners had participated. 12. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the notice enclosed copy of the requisition which contained the reasons/charges for the proposed meeting to consider the no confidence motion soliciting their presence and to have a meaningful debate. The legislative purpose for incorporating the reasons and charges in the notice as explained in Meena Yadav (supra) was, therefore, satisfied. No real prejudice, therefore, occasioned to the petitioner(s) or the members of the Panchayat Samiti. 13. This Court, in view of the above, is not persuaded to uphold the submission of the petitioners that on account of non-mentioning of the reasons/charges in the body of the notice although enclosing therewith the copy of the resolution containing reasons/charges would render the notice and the subsequent proceeding taken at the special meeting unsustainable in law. 13. This Court, in view of the above, is not persuaded to uphold the submission of the petitioners that on account of non-mentioning of the reasons/charges in the body of the notice although enclosing therewith the copy of the resolution containing reasons/charges would render the notice and the subsequent proceeding taken at the special meeting unsustainable in law. The purpose for enclosing the requisition alongwith the notice was to inform the noticee(s) i.e. the members of the Panchayat Samiti to know in advance the reasons/charges on which such no confidence motion was sought to be moved and to have a meaningful debate. In Meena Yadav (supra), this Court, in view of the particular facts of the case as also the facts of Nirmala Singh (supra), disapproved the contention of the respondent that there was, in fact, no denial of such right since materials indicate that these reasons/charges were known to the petitioner(s) or they did not care to know the reasons/charges. It is more than explicit to this Court that with a view to comply with the mandatory requirement of law, the Executive Officer, instead of enlisting the reasons/charges in the body of notice thought it proper and expedient to enclose the requisition itself with the notice. The purpose was obvious. The requirement of law as elucidated in Meena Yadav (supra) was complied with. 14. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court does not find much substance in the two contentions raised by the petitioners in support of the writ applications. 15. The writ applications are accordingly dismissed. 16. There shall be no order as to costs.