Patna High Court
Janki Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5985 of 2026
======================================================
Janki Devi Wife of Chulihai Ram, Resident of Village-Matiyariya, P.O.-
Makhua, Turakauliya, P.S.-Harsiddhi, District-East Champaran. Presently
Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi, East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. District Magistrate, East Champaran, District-East Champaran.
4. Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti,
Harsiddhi, East Champaran.
5. Aasma Praveen, wife of not known to the petitioner,
6. Mustaqeem Ansari, son of not known to the petitioner,
7. Deepak Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner,
8. Rizwana Khatoon, son of not known to the petitioner,
9. Braj Kishore Yadav, son of not known to the petitioner,
10. Amzad Khan, son of not known to the petitioner,
11. Pradeep Yadav, son of not known to the petitioner,
12. Savitri Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner,
13. Suresh Das, son of not known to the petitioner,
14. Geeta Devi, Wife of not known to the petitioner,
15. Wasima Khatoon, wife of not known to the petitioner,
16. Shailendra Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner,
17. Chanda Kumari, wife of not known to the petitioner,
18. Shivji Yadav, son of not known to the petitioner,
19. Suganti Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner,
20. Sarfaraz Rai, son of not known to the petitioner,
21. Geeta Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner,
Respondent No.5 to 21 are elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti,
Harsiddhi, Block-Harsiddi, P.S.-Harsiddhi District-East Champaran.
22. Gulaichi Devi, Elected Member, Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi Block,
Constituency No. 14- Respondent No. 22
23. Razia Khatun, Elected Member, Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi Block,
Constituency No. 20- Respondent No. 23
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
2/21
24. Subhasini Devi, Elected Member, Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi Block,
Constituency No. 9- Respondent No. 24
25. Prabha Devi, Elected Member, Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi Block,
Constituency No. 5- Respondent No. 25
26. State Election Commission, Bihar, through its Secretary, Sone Bhawan, 3rd
Floor, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001- Respondent No. 26.
27. Vijay Kumar Kushwaha son of Late Ramdas Prasad, Constituency No. 3.
Elected Member - Block Panchayat Samiti. Harsiddhi Block. Resident of
Village- Yadopur, Block- Harsiddhi East Champaran.
28. Hasan Raja Miyan son of Amin Miyan, Constituency No. 18, Elected
Member Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi Block, Resident of Village-
Kritpur, Block -Harsiddhi East Champaran.
29. Dinesh Prasad son of Jagarnath Prasad, Constituency No. 13, Elected
Member -Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi Block, Resident of Village-
Mathkohiyar, Block Harsiddhi East Champaran.
30. Kanhaiya Prasad son of Shivnath Prasad, Constituency No. 15, Elected
Member Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi Block, Resident of Village-
Ghiwadar, Block Harsiddhi East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy-1, SC-13
Mr. U.K. Singh, AC to SC-13
For the SEC : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Pvt. Resp. : Mr. SBK Manglam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2026
Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. U.K.Singh, learned counsel for the State of Bihar,
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the State Election
Commission and Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
3/21
private respondents/requisitionists.
2. The petitioner filed the instant application for the
following relief(s):
"I. That the present writ application is being filed in
the nature of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the
notice dated 01.04.2026 given by elected members
of Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi, East
Champaran, for convening a special meeting to
consider a No-Confidence Motion against the
Pramukh (Petitioner), alleging violation of the
section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2006'); as the
said notice is hit by principle of "Coram non judice"
(issued without legal authority or jurisdiction), it is
ultra vires, as it is hit by Section 44(3)(iii) of the
Act, 2006, the meeting is invalid;
II. That the present writ petition is being filed in the
nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction to the
respondents to desist from proceeding in terms of
Section 44(3)(iii) of the Act, 2006 and from
convening any special meeting for consideration of
a No-Confidence Motion against the Pramukh
(Petitioner), as the same is barred by law;
III. For any other relief(s) to which the Petitioner
may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
3. On an application being filed by the petitioner,
additional reliefs to be prayed for by the petitioner were allowed
which are as follows:
"IV. That the present writ application is being filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
4/21
in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Letter No.
180 dated 20.04.2026 issued under the signature of
Block Development Officer, Harsiddhi, East
Champaran, by which a special meeting has been
called for a no-confidence motion against the
petitioner (Janki Devi Presently Pramukh of - Block
Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi, East Champaran).
V. That the present writ application is being filed to
set aside the proceedings of the special meeting
convened by the Executive Officer-cum-Block
Development Officer, pursuant to which a no-
confidence motion was carried out on 29.04.2026."
4. The petitioner, an elected Pramukh of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Harsiddhi has filed the instant application challenging
the notice dated 1.4.2026 given by the elected members of the
Block Panchayat Samiti for convening the special meeting to
consider the no confidence motion against the
Pramukh/petitioner, to restrain the respondents from proceeding
on the said letter, for quashing the letter dated 20.4.2026 issued
under the signature of the Executive Officer/Block Development
Officer, Harsiddhi fixing the date of meeting on 29.4.2026 at 11
a.m. as also for quashing the proceedings of the meeting of the
Panchayat Samiti held on 29.4.2026 wherein the no confidence
motion was passed against the petitioner by 18 out of the 20
members participating.
5. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
5/21
elected as a member of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi
on 1.12.2021 and as a Pramukh on 13.3.2024. It is the case of
the petitioner that she came to know through a facebook post
that a notice dated 1.4.2026 has been issued for convening a
special meeting to consider the no confidence motion against
her on the charges as mentioned therein. A total of 17 out of 26
elected members were shown to have taken the decision to
convene a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion
against her. The B.D.O. having issued a letter dated 20.4.2026
for convening a special meeting on 29.4.2026 during pendency
of the instant application and the said meeting having taken
place wherein the no confidence motion was passed against the
petitioner by 18 out of 20 members participating, the petitioner
has also challenged the letter dated 20.4.2026 and the
proceedings dated 29.4.2026 in the instant application.
6. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the prayer made in the instant application is fit to
be allowed on the grounds that 9 out of 17 members who
requisitioned the meeting were not actually present nor had
signed the requisition. Their signatures were forged and the
respondents had played a fraud on the statute. The requisition
was not presented to the Pramukh/petitioner as required under
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
6/21
section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). The term of the petitioner as a Pramukh
expired in August 2026, so no special meeting could be called in
view of the provision contained in section 44(3)(iii) of the Act.
The charges levelled in the requisition were vague, not specific
and thus the requisition itself was bad. It was submitted that for
all these reasons writ application was fit to be allowed, the
orders impugned be set aside and the prayer made in paragraph
no.1 be granted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in the case of
Sindhu Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2002(1)
PLJR 281(DB), Arti Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.;
2015(3) PLJR 276 and Santosh Kumar Rai & Anr. vs. State of
Bihar & Ors.; 2019(2) PLJR 380.
7. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the State of Bihar. Referring to the counter
affidavit filed, it was submitted that the petitioner and other
members of the Panchayat Samiti having been elected in
November/December 2021, their terms would expire in
November/December 2026. Thus section 44(3)(iii) of the Act
has no application. It was further submitted that 17 of the
elected members went to submit a no confidence motion to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
7/21
Pramukh on 1.4.2026, however as she was not available in the
office and refused to meet the requisitionists at home, the same
was submitted in original along with the photocopy in the office
of the Executive Officer-cum-B.D.O. The B.D.O. sent a copy of
the notice in original on 1.4.2026 to the office of the Pramukh
by a peon which was refused. It was again sent to her residence
on 2.4.2026 which was again refused. Thereafter the requisition
was pasted on the front gate and photographs were taken. A
copy of the requisition was also sent through electronic means.
On the Pramukh not fixing the date in exercise of powers under
section 44(3)(i), the date of special meeting was fixed on
29.4.2026
at 11 a.m. As would be evident from the noting of the
peon on 21.4.2026, the information about the meeting going to
be convened on 29.4.2026 at 11 a.m. was given to the Pramukh
on 21.4.2026. 20 elected Panchayat Samiti members
participated in the meeting on 29.4.2026 and the no confidence
motion was passed by 18 votes to 2 in favour of the motion. It is
further submitted that further directions have been given by the
Joint Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Bihar
to the District Officer-cum-District Election Officer
(Panchayat), East Champaran to conduct the election for
Pramukh of Block Harsiddhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
8/21
8. Learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar
further submitted that notice of the meeting having been served
on the Pramukh on 21.4.2026, there was seven clear days
between the date of service of notice and the date fixed for
considering the no confidence motion ie 29.4.2026. On
29.4.2026, the no confidence motion was passed by 18 out of 20
elected members participating and thus by a majority of the total
elected members which is 26. Thus, there being no merit in the
writ application, the same be dismissed.
9. Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel appearing for the
requisitionists/private respondents opposing the application
submitted that all efforts having been made to present the
requisition for calling special meeting to consider the no
confidence motion against the Pramukh by the requisitionists to
the Pramukh and they not having succeeded, they served the
original as also a copy of the same as required under section
44(1) of the Act before the B.D.O.-cum-Executive Officer. The
attempts even by the B.D.O. to get the notice served on the
Pramukh on 1.4.2026 at her office and on 2.4.2026 at her
residence failed on account of her refusal and thereafter the
requisition was pasted on the front gate and photographs taken.
It is submitted that the petitioner accepts having received the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
9/21
notice through electronic means and has also brought a copy of
the same on record as Annexure P/4 to the writ application.
After repeated attempts and inspite of service, no date of special
meeting having been fixed, in exercise of powers under section
44(3)(i) of the Act, the date of special meeting was fixed for
29.4.2026 and the same was communicated by the Executive
Officer to all the Panchayat Samiti members including the
Pramukh by letter dated 20.4.2026. The notice was served on
the Pramukh on 21.4.2026. After clear seven days of the service
of notice, the special meeting was convened on 29.4.2026
wherein 20 Panchayat Samiti members participated and 18
voted in favour of no confidence motion. Thus with a majority
of the elected members ie 18 out of 26 having voted to oust the
Pramukh and the entire procedure having been followed in
accordance with law, there is no merit in the instant application
and the same be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
11. The relevant facts in brief are that in the Block
Panchayat Samiti consisting of total 26 members, the petitioner
was elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti on 1.12.2021
and later as the Pramukh on 13.3.2024. On 1.4.2026, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
10/21
notice/requisition signed by 17 members of the Panchayat
Samiti and addressed to the Pramukh requested the Pramukh to
call for a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion
against her on the grounds that she had acted arbitrarily by not
calling the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on time, giving
preference to close associates in the standing committee, the
resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti not being
implemented, tampering with the resolutions of the Panchayat
Samiti, the funds being received for development not being
distributed equitably, majority of the meetings being conducted
not by the Pramukh but by her son and creating obstacles in the
working of Panchayat Samiti. It transpires from the records that
the requisitionists went to the official chamber of the Pramukh
on 1.4.2026 to present the requisition, however she was absent.
Thereafter they went to her residence but she refused to meet
the requisitionists.
12. It is the case of the requisitionists that the son of the
Pramukh was present at the petitioner’s residence and was ready
to start a quarrel. Avoiding any scuffle, the requisitionists
returned and sent the original requisition along with the
photocopy of the same to the Executive Officer. It further
transpires that the Executive Officer on 1.4.2026 itself sent the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
11/21
requisition through a peon to the Pramukh, however she once
again refused to receive and the same was sent on 2.4.2026 to
her house which was also refused. Thereafter the same was
pasted at her house and photographs taken. The process was
repeated on 3.4.2026 as also on 4.4.2026.
13. No meeting having been fixed by the Pramukh as
required under section 44(3) of the Act, on 20.4.2026, the
requisitionists fixed the date for special meeting on 29.4.2026
and requested the Executive Officer to issue notice of the
special meeting to all the elected members. Accordingly, a
notice dated 20.4.2026 was issued by the Executive Officer and
it was received by the Pramukh on 21.4.2026. The special
meeting took place on 29.4.2026 wherein 20 of the total 26
elected members participated and the no confidence motion was
passed against the Pramukh with 18 votes being cast in favour
of the motion, being majority of the total elected members
which is 26.
14. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that large number of persons have not signed on the
requisition and their signatures have been forged, it may only be
observed here that no such persons/requisitionists/respondents
have appeared before this Court with any material in support of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
12/21
the said contention made by the petitioner. Thus, the same has
no legs to stand on.
15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the requisition was not presented to the
Pramukh as required under section 44(3) of the Act and thus the
same is not sustainable. From the contents of the affidavits on
record it will clearly be evident that attempt was made by the
requisitionists to present the requisition to the Pramukh on
1.4.2026 both at her office as also her residence. Thereafter the
Executive Officer sent the notice to her several times between
1.4.2026 and 3.4.2026. On the petitioner’s refusal, the notice
was pasted on the wall of the petitioner’s residence and
photographs taken.
16. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the case of Sindhu
Devi (supra), the very notice of the requisition did not indicate
the grounds and the basis on which the action for motion of no
confidence was contemplated. The charges and the allegations
not having been mentioned in the requisition and the motion for
no confidence having been passed by a majority even in absence
of any charges, this Court held that it would not be the rule of a
majority but would be mobocracy. The facts of this case are
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
13/21
clearly distinguishable in so far as the charges/allegations
against the petitioner/Pramukh are clearly mentioned in the
requisition dated 1.4.2026.
17. In the case of Arti Kumari (supra), this Court noted
that if a requisition though addressed to the Pramukh but if
rooted through Executive Officer-cum-B.D.O. to be presented to
the Pramukh, the same has been held to be an illegal procedure
adopted by the requsitionists. So far as the facts of the instant
case is concerned, the requisitionists have clearly stated that
they made repeated attempts to present the requisition to the
Pramukh and inspite of all efforts, having failed, the requisition
was got served through the Executive Officer. The Pramukh
having refused the service through the Executive Officer also
lead to pasting of the requisition in the residence of the
Pramukh. Thus, this judgment is of no assistance to the
petitioner.
18. The judgment in the case of Santosh Kumar Rai
(supra) is also of no assistance to the petitioner in so far as there
is detailed averment on affidavit both by the
requisitionists/private respondents as also the Executive Officer-
cum-B.D.O., firstly that the requisitionists attempted to present
the requisition to the Pramukh and the requisitionists not having
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
14/21
succeeded either at the Pramukh’s office or her residence, the
original as also a copy of the same was provided to the
Executive Officer who also made attempts to get the same
served. Ultimately the Pramukh having refused to receive the
requisition, the same was finally pasted on her house and
photographs taken.
19. This Court in the case of Ramendra Ram vs. The
State of Bihar; 2014(4) PLJR 413 has categorically held that
when the provision requires the presentation of the requisition to
the Pramukh, it does not mean that it can only be served
personally upon him but all that is required is that the
requisition should reach him. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment read as follows:
“10. In so far as the issue of presentation of requisition
is concerned, all that the provision requires is that the
requisition should be presented to the Pramukh in
writing with a copy to the Executive Officer. The mode
and manner of presentation is not explained and thus
the legislative intendment has to be seen for there may
be circumstances where the Pramukh avoids service of
notice and in such circumstances as well as in
circumstances where the repeated efforts by the process
server fails, all other options would be available to the
Executive Officer to get it served, whether through
registered post/speed post or in the manner provided
under Order-V, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
15/21all modes are available. When the provision requires
the presentation of the requisition to the Pramukh it
does not mean that it can only be served personally
upon him by the requisitionists rather all that is
required is that the requisition should reach the
Pramukh and the manner in which it reaches becomes
irrelevant, so long as the receipt is not in question.
11. Thus any requisition which is addressed to the
Pramukh and in particular circumstances where it
cannot be served upon him, until such time that such
requisition reaches the Pramukh in whatever mode and
manner, no objection can be raised by the Pramukh on
the manner of presentation. In so far as the present case
is concerned it is the admission of the petitioners that
they have received requisition by speed-post well in
advance of the special meeting and thus the objection is
only taken to be rejected.
14. In the opinion of this Court whatever be the merits
of the allegations, once they are put to motion and after
following the lawful procedure, has resulted in the
Pramukh/Up-Pramukh as the case may be, loosing the
confidence of the house, there can be no judicial review
either on the merits of allegations or the right of the
members to maintain a second motion on identical
allegations. A discussion on the allegations as provided
under Section 44(3)(vi) would gain relevance only
where there is opposition to it or where the
Pramukh/Up-Pramukh decides to contest the same and
vindicate their stand. It is an opportunity provided to
the holder of the post and may be of a persuasive value
but the outcome of the motion lies in the secret voting
and if the same goes in favour of the no confidence
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
16/21motion, the outgoing Pramukh/Up-Pramukh would have
to honour the view of the house unless it suffers from
procedural infraction.
15. In so far as the present case is concerned the
petitioners having lost the confidence of the house with
no legal infirmities in the no confidence motion passed
against them, they have no right to continue.”
20. In the case of Priyanka Devi vs. The State of Bihar
(order dated 17.2.2026 in LPA no.941 of 2024), a Division
Bench of this Court held as follows:
“44. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 next refers to a
reported judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Sabila Khatoon & Ors. vs. State of Bihar
& Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 10413: (2017) 2
PLJR 29. This case relates to consideration of No
Confidence Motion requisitioned by the Councillors
against the Chairman of a Municipality under the
Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. Paragraph Nos. 7 & 8
of the said report clearly recording the following:-
“7. A perusal of the said provision shows that
requisition has to be given to Chief Councillor. The
provision does not satisfy that it has to be Denise
delivered to the Chief Councillor personally. It can
be received by any person on her behalf. The
requirement of serving of requisition personally on
the Chief Councillor is otherwise also not possible
as the person against her No Confidence is
proposed always can go hiding or otherwise delay
the receipt of requisition defeating the purpose of
sending the requisition itself. Such is the view taken
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
17/21by a Division Bench of this Court in LP.A. No. 1077
of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar)
decided on 4.8.2014 wherein the Court pichas held
the fact.
Relevant extract reads as under :-
18. While answering the question, posed above,
it needs to be borne in mind that it is the
fundamental rule of the interpretation of statutes
that a word, appearing in the statute, shall be given
its ordinary meaning and nothing shall be added to
the statutory provisions or substracted therefrom.
When the word “personally” does not appear in the
statutory provisions embodied in Rule 2(i) of 2010
Rules, it will be wholly unreasonable to insist that a
requisition under Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules shall be
given “personally” to the Chief Councillor
demanding holding of special meeting.
19. When Rule 2(1) of 2010 Rules, nowhere,
makes it obligatory, on the part of requisitionists, to
give a Chief Councillor requisition for special
meeting “personally” Rule 2(1) of 2010 Rules
cannot be interpreted to either impose an obligation
on the elected members, as requisitionists, to
present “personally” to the Chief Councillor the
requisition nor can it be said that the Chief
Councillor shall be given requisition, “personally”.
If Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules is interpreted to convey
what Mr. Giri attributes to the provisions contained
in Rule 2 (i) of 2010, Rules, the consequences may
be disastrous inasmuch as a Chief Councillor can
always avoid personal service of a requisition and
would, thus, not call for any special meeting and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
18/21
thereby frustrate the whole purpose of no
confidence motion and bring, as a sequel thereto, a
complete collapse of a democratic institution, such
as, Panchayat.”
8. In view of the Division Bench Judgment
wherein the similar issue was raised and decided,
we find that the order of learned Single Bench
holding that the requisition has to be served
personally on the Chief Councillor cannot be
sustained. Thus, the No Confidence Motion passed
against the writ applicant in the meeting held on
15.10.2016 does not suffer from any illegality
warranting interference in the writ application.
There is another reason as to why the writ applicant
is not entitled to any indulgence. After No
Confidence Motion was carried out against the writ
applicant, the fresh election was convened for 11th
November, 2016. Though, this Court has ordered
that the result shall not be declared but the
applicant contested the post of Chief Councillor,
therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court as
reported (2010) 1 PLJR 929-Smt. Shamshad Khatun
v. The State of Bihar, and (2010) 3 PLJR 98- Sanjay
Kumar Mahajan v. State of Bihar, the writ applicant
is estopped to challenge her removal. It has been
held that once the person takes a chance and
contests the election, even though a dispute may be
sub judice before the court, cannot be allowed to
challenge his/her very removal from the post which
led to holding of the subsequent election. In view of
the aforesaid judgment as well, we find that the writ
applicant cannot be permitted to dispute the passing
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
19/21
of the No Confidence Motion having participated in
the election held on 11th of November, 2016.”
45. Thus, it is contended by the learned
Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to
7 that the provision of Section 44(3) of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which is pari materia to
Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 does
not satisfy that the requisition for No Confidence
Motion has to be delivered to the Chief Councillor
personally, it can be received by any person on her
behalf. The requirement of serving of requisition
personally on the Prakhand Pramukh is otherwise
also not possible, as the person against whom No
Confidence is proposed, always can go hiding or
otherwise delay the receipt of requisition, defeating
the purpose of sending the requisition itself.”
21. As held in the case of Priyanka Devi (supra), so far as
the facts of the instant case are concerned, herein also section
44(3) of the Act requires the requisition to be presented by the
requisitionists to the Pramukh but there is no requirement that
the same be presented personally.
22. In view of the above, taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case wherein the Pramukh
against whom the no confidence motion is moved avoids service
of notice, he/she in a given case may defeat the purpose and
indefinitely delayed the convening of the special meeting to
consider the no confidence motion.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
20/21
23. So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned, not
only the requisitionists moved to present the requisition on the
Pramukh on 1.4.2026 but repeated attempts were made at both
her office as also her residence firstly by the requisitionists and
then on several dates between 1.4.2026 to 3.4.2026 by the
Executive Officer who sent the requisition in original through a
peon. On repeated refusal to receive the notice, the requisition
was pasted at the house of the Pramukh, photographs taken and
on the Pramukh not fixing the date for special meeting, the
members of the Panchayat Samiti fixed the meeting which was
communicated by the Executive Officer by his notice dated
20.4.2026. The notice was received by the Pramukh on
21.4.2026.
24. As fixed, the special meeting took place on 29.4.2026
wherein 20 Panchayat Samiti members participated and 18
voted in favour of the no confidence motion. Thus, the position
remains that the no confidence motion has been voted by a
majority (18 out of 26) of the total elected members against the
Pramukh.
25. The Court finds no illegality in either the requisition
dated 1.4.2026 of the 17 requisitionists, the letter dated
20.4.2026 of the Executive Officer fixing the special meeting or
Patna High Court CWJC No.5985 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
21/21
the proceedings of the special meeting held on 29.4.2026.
26. The Court finds no merit in the instant writ application
and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 07.07.2026 Uploading Date 15.07.2026 Transmission Date N/A
