JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for quashing of the order dated 14.11.2023 contained in Memo No. 1000 in Appeal Petition No. 03/2023, wherein proceedings for no confidence against Respondent No. 6 has been set aside and directed that she may continue to function as Pamukh of the Panchayati Samiti, Tarhasi, Dist-Palamu. The Petitioner has further prayed that Respondent No. 6 be disqualified from the post of Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, Tarhasi, Dist-Palamu. 3. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the Tarhasi Block in Palamu District. The Panchayat Samiti of the concerned block has 16 (sixteen) members who in turn elect 1 (one) Pramukh. The tenure of the samiti is 5 (five) years. It is further submitted that; Respondent No. 6 was unanimously elected as the Pramukh by the panchayat Samiti on 21.6.2022. However, the Petitioner has made allegation with respect to the corruption with respect to the funds allotted by the Finance Commission to the Samiti and as such a motion of no-confidence was brought as against the Petitioner on 3.7.2023 by filing appropriate application before Respondent No. 4. The date for vote on the no-confidence motion was fixed on 18.7.2023. However, in the meantime, a notice was served by the Petitioner along with certain other members of the Samiti that Respondent No. 6 has informed them that she would resign from the post of the Pramukh on 25.7.2023. In case the same does not happen, the vote on no-confidence should be held on 26.7.2023. Considering, the above application, the vote of no-confidence was kept in abeyance vide order contained in Memo No. 100 dated 14.7.2023. 4. It has been further submitted that on 21.8.2023, when Respondent No. 6 failed to resign from her post, the Petitioner along with certain other members of the Samiti scheduled a meeting for vote of no confidence. Thereafter, a proposal dated 25.8.2023 was sent by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 2 for holding meeting in connection with the no confidence motion. Another representation dated 1.9.2023 was made by the Petitioner along with certain other members of the Samiti before Respondent No. 5 for taking necessary steps to call for the meeting for voting on the no-confidence motion. Another representation dated 1.9.2023 was made by the Petitioner along with certain other members of the Samiti before Respondent No. 5 for taking necessary steps to call for the meeting for voting on the no-confidence motion. However, the same was turned down by Respondent No. 5, in light of the Memo No. 100 dated 14.7.2023 and the meeting cannot be scheduled. In the meantime, another letter was issued by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4 to take appropriate steps in accordance with Rule 3 of the >kj[akM iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds mieqf[k;k@iapk;r lfefr ds izeq[k ,oe miizeq[ k@ftyk ik"kZn ds v/;{k ,oe mik/;{k½ ds fo:) vfo'okl izLrko lapkyu izfØ;k fu;ekoyh] 2012- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant thereto, the date for the meeting was determined to be held on 14.9.2023 at 11:00 AM and the motion was approved with 3/4th majority and the decision was published in Memo No. 156 dated 14.9.2023. 6. Thereafter, a letter dated 15.9.2023 was issued by Respondent No. 6 to Respondent No. 2 stating that the vote of no confidence was non est in the eyes of law as no confidence motion was initiated twice within a period of 45 (forty-five) days. This objection was registered as Case No. 3 of 2023. The Petitioner and certain other members of the Samiti filed an intervention application on which no order was passed. Respondent No. 6, in Case No. 3 of 2023 pleaded that the meeting of no-confidence was held contrary to Rule 3 (vii) and (viii) of the Rule, 2012. Further, as no confidence motion could me moved only once a year; as such, the vote was also contrary to Rule 5(iii)(ga) of Rules, 2012. 7. The Respondent No. 2 accepted the contentions raised by Respondent No. 6 and vide order contained in Memo No. 1000 dated 14.11.2023 set aside the order of proceedings of no confidence as against Respondent No. 6. 8. In light of the aforesaid facts, learned Counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the order passed in Case No. 3 of 2023 contained within Memo No. 1000 dated 14.11.2023 vitiates the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the Petitioner or any member of the Samiti. 8. In light of the aforesaid facts, learned Counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the order passed in Case No. 3 of 2023 contained within Memo No. 1000 dated 14.11.2023 vitiates the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the Petitioner or any member of the Samiti. It is further contented that Rule 3(viii) mandates that steps for conducting meeting for the no-confidence motion has to be fixed with 15 (fifteen) days and there is no necessity to hold a meeting within such period. It has been further submitted that there is no procedural impropriety with the said order. 9. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the no-confidence motion was not carried out in accordance with law and the order dated 14.9.2023 is thus bad in eye of law. Ld. Counsel has primarily relied on Section 43(3)(Ga) of the Act, 2001 and Rule 5(III)(Ga) of the Rules, 2012 to support his argument that no-confidence motion can be held only once a year. He has relied on the case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, (2016) 3 JLJR 656 , is support of his contentions. 10. Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has filed a counter-affidavit that there is no proof submitted by the Petitioner and other members of the Samiti with respect to the allegation of corruption. It has been further pleaded that under Section 45 of the Act, 2001; the Respondent ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard. In absencethereto, the action was contrary to law. He has further supported the impugned order stating that the due procedure prescribed under the Rules, 2012 was not followed. 11. Heard learned Counsel representing their respective parties at length and having perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. The facts show that a no-confidence motion was first initiated on 03.07.2023. The meeting for the same was scheduled on 18.07.2023. The information with respect to the same was given to the members on 08.07.2023. However, upon the request of the members, the said decision to hold a meeting of no-confidence was kept in abeyance on11.07.2023. Thereafter, another application was made on 1.9.2023, wherein the Petitioner and the other members requested that the meeting for the no-confidence motion be scheduled. The information with respect to the same was given to the members on 08.07.2023. However, upon the request of the members, the said decision to hold a meeting of no-confidence was kept in abeyance on11.07.2023. Thereafter, another application was made on 1.9.2023, wherein the Petitioner and the other members requested that the meeting for the no-confidence motion be scheduled. The meeting was scheduled on 14.9.2023 and the information with respect to the same was given on 4.9.2023. 12. It has been firstly contended by the Petitioner that the matter was in accordance with Rule 3(viii) of the Rule, 2012, while the Respondent No. 2 and 6 has argued that as the meeting was not held within 15 days of the notice, the same is not in accordance with law. Thus it is necessary to peruse Rule3(viii) of the Rule, 2012, which is reproduced as under:- viii) xzke iapkr] iapk;r lfefr] ftyk ifj"kn dk ihBklhu inkf/kdkjh ;FkkfLFkfr lwpuk izkIr gksus ds 15 fnuks ds Hkhrj cSBd djkus dh dkjokbZ djsaxs] ijarq cSBd gsrq izR;sd lnL; dks cSBd vk;ksnksftr djus ds lkFk fnuka iwoZ ihBklhu inkkf/kdkjh }kjk bl fu;ekoyh ds layXu izi= [k ds }kjk lwpuk nh tk,xhA 13. It is also significant to refer to Section 3(8) of the Jharkhand Municipal (Procedure for conduct of no confidence Motion against Deputy Mayor/Vice-Chairperson) Rule, 2014. The same is reproduced as under:- uxjfuxe] uxjifj"kn@uxjiapk;r dk ikBlhu inkf/kdkjh ;Fkk fLFkfr lwpuk izkIr gksus ds 15 fnuksa ds Hkhrj vfo'okl izLrko ij ppkZ ,o ernku gsrq fo'ks"k cSBd dk vk;kstu lqfuf'pr djsxsa^^ 14. From bare perusal of the two provisions, which is referred to hereinabove, it is apparent that so far as the no- confidence motion notice if brought before the Presiding Officer in any Nagar Nigam or Nagar Parishad/Panchayat,the same has to be completed within 15 (fifteen) days, which shall also include the exercise of voting. However, when the notice of non- confidence motion is brought before the Presiding Officer in village panchayat, panchaya samiti, jila parishad; the only requirement is to hold start the procedure for the purpose of conducting a meeting within 15 (fifteen) days. There is no such requirement that the voting exercise should be completed within such 15 (fifteen) days. However, when the notice of non- confidence motion is brought before the Presiding Officer in village panchayat, panchaya samiti, jila parishad; the only requirement is to hold start the procedure for the purpose of conducting a meeting within 15 (fifteen) days. There is no such requirement that the voting exercise should be completed within such 15 (fifteen) days. There is no reason to read something which is not there in the statute;more so, when the legislation has incorporated such requirement of completion of no confidence motion within 15 (fifteen) days in connection to Nagar Nigam and has not done so far as Pancahat samiti is concerned. 15. As such, this Court is in agreement with the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner and finds that there was no procedural impropriety as far as Rule 3(viii) of the Rule, 2012 is concerned. The judgement relied upon by Respondent No. 2 is not applicable in the given facts of the case. 16. Coming to the next issue;learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that the entire meeting called on 14.9.2023 is vitiated under Rule 5(iii)( Xk ) of the Rules, 2012, as meeting cannot be held twice in one year. Accordingly, for proper appreciation of the contention, Rule 5(iii)( Xk½ of the Rules, 2012 is reproduced as under:- iwoZ ds vfo'okl izLrko ds ukeatwj fd, tkus dh frfFk ds ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj ubZ yk;k tk,xkA 17. A bare perusal of the above will show that when the no- confidence motion brought for against a Pramukh or Up- pramukh (or any other member) is defeated, the same cannot be introduced within 1 (one) year. The bare reading of the provision makes it clear that there is no ambiguity and the presence of the work ukeatwj makes it amply clear that the vote ought to be defeated i.e. a decision has to be taken, which is absent in the instant case. This Court draws strength from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Ors , [ (2011) 9 SCC 573 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that decision (or decided) means that the matter should be concluded and not kept pending or deferred. As such the no- confidence motion was never concluded and was only kept in abeyance and thereafter again vide notice dated 1.9.2023 by the Petitioner and other members of the Samiti proceeded with the same; as such, it cannot be said that meeting held on 14.9.2023 was a second/ fresh motion of no confidence. 18. Further, if the interpretation of the Respondents is accepted, the strategy used by Respondent No. 6 to belay the word, would trample sacrosanct democratic principles embedded in the right of the members of the Samiti to recall the choice of their leader. In light thereof, I hold that Rule 5(iii)( Xk ) of the Rules, 2012 would not be attracted in the instant case. 19. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that vote of no-confidence against the Petitioner succeeded with overwhelming majority. The democratic system of governance is the basic feature of the Constitution and the same cannot be defeated;more so by taking such technical plea which is not there in the statue. 20. In light of the above, the order contained in Memo No. 1000 dated 14.11.2023 passed in Case No. 3 of 2023, is hereby, quashed and the order bearing number 156 dated 14.9.2023, is hereby, restored. As a consequence, thereof, Respondent No. 6 is removed from the office of Pramukh. Consequently,Respondent No. 2 is directed to hold fresh elections for the said post in accordance with law. 21. As a result, the instant writ petition is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, also stand closed.