said meeting which was attended by 9 members, including the petitioners, in the voting held, the motion was carried by 7 in favour of the motion and 2 against. It was submitted that for passing of the motion, as per Section 44 (3) (i) of the Act, it should be passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, holding office at that point of time. Learned counsel submitted that in such view of the matter, the number required to carry for the motion was 7. It was submitted that when the ballots were being counted, despite Rule 96(a)(d) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') one member had put a plus (+) mark instead of cross (x) mark which was required to be put on the ballots and when the same was objected, the member who was chairing the special meeting overruled the same and held it to be valid and under such circumstances, 7 votes were held to have been cast in support of the motion. It was submitted that had the one plus (+) mark ballot been rejected, the motion would have failed and this would have changed the entire scenario. Learned counsel submitted that if the statute requires a particular mode of exercise, any violation or deviation from the same has to be held to be fatal to the exercise. It was submitted that the cross (x) and plus (+) are two separate and distinct marks and cannot be held to be one and the same. It was
