Ranju Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 21 May, 2026

    0
    19
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Patna High Court – Orders

    Ranju Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 21 May, 2026

    Author: Rajiv Roy

    Bench: Rajiv Roy

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8261 of 2026
                     ======================================================
                     Ranju Devi
    
                                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                            Versus
                     The State of Bihar & Ors.
    
                                                               ... ... Respondent/s
                     ======================================================
                     Appearance :
                     For the Petitioner/s      :        Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
                     For the State             :        Mr. Standing Counsel (7)
                     ======================================================
                     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                           ORAL ORDER
    
    2   21-05-2026

    This matter has been taken up by the Civil and

    Criminal Application Motion Bench during the summer

    SPONSORED

    vacation through virtual mode.

    2. Heard the parties through virtual mode.

    3. The present petition has been preferred for the

    grant of following relief(s):

    “(i) for issuance of writ in the nature of

    Certiorari for quashing the requisition dated

    16.05.2026 directly presented before the

    Respondent No. 6, the Block Development

    Officer, Sonbarsa-cum-Executive Officer, Block

    Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa

    addressed to the post of Pramukh, not the

    person, who holds the post of Pramukh without

    serving/presenting the requisition for such
    Patna High Court CWJC No.8261 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
    2/6

    Special Meeting to the Petitioner in writing, in

    complete teeth of Section-44(3)(i) and 44(3)(ii)

    as well as Section-44(3)(iv) of the Bihar

    Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and ratio laid down in

    the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex

    Court of India and the Hon’ble Patna High

    Court, Patna, the said requisition directly given

    to the Executive Officer, (Panchayat Samiti)-

    cum-Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa,

    whereby and whereunder, a request has been

    made from Respondent No. 6 (Executive Officer)

    by the requisitionists to communicate the said

    requisition to the Petitioner to fix the date for

    Special Meeting from want of No Confidence

    Motion against the Petitioner / Pramukh and the

    said requisition has simply been communicated

    through Memo No. 682-2 dated 16.05.2026, CC

    to all Members of the Panchayat Samiti,

    Sonbarsa, Up-Pramukh. Pramukh and other

    authorities including District Magistrate,

    Saharsa, in a complete violation of mandatory

    provisions enshrined under Section-44 of the
    Patna High Court CWJC No.8261 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
    3/6

    Act, 2006.

    (ii) for a declaration that if a

    particular Statute has prescribed a particular

    procedure for certain act, the act has to be done

    in the manner prescribed. Since the

    requisitionists members have presented the

    impugned requisition directly to the Respondent

    No. 6, neither presented to the Pramukh nor

    addressed by specific containing the name of the

    person, who holds the post of Pramukh Sonbarsa

    Block, Saharsa but the same has been presented

    before the Block Development Officer Sonbarsa-

    cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti,

    Sonbarsa ignoring the fact that No Confidence

    Motion may be brought against the Pramukh,

    who holds the post and the same is against the

    procedure prescribed under Sub-Section 3 (i)

    and 3 (ii) as well as 3(iv) of Section-44 of the

    Gram Panchayat Act, 2006.

    (iii) for staying the operation of

    requisition dated 16.05.2026 directly presented

    before the Respondent No. 6, the Block
    Patna High Court CWJC No.8261 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
    4/6

    Development Officer, Sonbarsa-cum-Executive

    Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa,

    District-Saharsa addressed to the post of

    Pramukh, not the person, who holds the post of

    Pramukh without serving / presenting the

    requisition for such Special Meeting to the

    Petitioner in writing, in complete teeth of

    Section-44(3)(i) and 44(3)(ii) as well as Section-

    44(3)(iv) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006

    and ratio laid down in the catena of judgments

    of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and the

    Hon’ble Patna High Court, Patna, the said

    requisition directly given to the Executive

    Officer, (Panchayat Samiti)-cum-Block

    Development Officer, Sonbarsa, whereby and

    whereunder, a request has been made from

    Respondent No. 6 (Executive Officer) by the

    requisitionists to communicate the said

    requisition to the Petitioner to fix the date for

    Special Meeting from want of No Confidence

    Motion against the Petitioner / Pramukh and the

    said requisition has simply been communicated
    Patna High Court CWJC No.8261 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
    5/6

    through Memo No. 682-2 dated 16.05.2026, CC

    to all Members of the Panchayat Samiti,

    Sonbarsa, Up-Pramukh, Pramukh and other

    authorities including District Magistrate,

    Saharsa, in a complete violation of mandatory

    provisions enshrined under Section-44 of the

    Act, 2006.

    (iv) for any other relief/reliefs for

    which the petitioner is entitled for in the facts

    and circumstances of the case.”

    4. The case of the petitioner is that in complete

    violation of section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006

    (henceforth for short ‘the Act’), instead of presenting the

    requisition for special meeting to the petitioner who is serving

    as ‘Pramukh’, it was sent to the Executive Officer-cum-Block

    Development Officer, Sonbarsa who in a routine manner

    forwarded it to this petitioner.

    5. Learned State counsel submits that he shall be

    filing affidavit in the matter on behalf of the respondents.

    6. This Court has gone through the requisition and is

    prima facie satisfied that a case has been made out.

    7. Issue notice to the respondent nos. 7 to 29 through
    Patna High Court CWJC No.8261 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
    6/6

    both processes i.e. ordinary as well as registered cover with A/D

    for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of one

    week failing which the application shall stand rejected without

    further reference to the Bench.

    8. In case, the order passed is not complied and the

    matter accordingly stands dismissed, subsequently, the same be

    posted under the heading ‘To be Mentioned’.

    9. The respondent shall be filing reply within a period

    of two weeks after summer vacation after service of copy to the

    learned counsel for the petitioner.

    10. Till the next date of hearing, the requisition dated

    16.05.2026 shall remain stayed.

    11. List this case on 02.07.2026.

    (Rajiv Roy, J)
    vinayak/-

    U



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here