Patna High Court
Priyanka Devi @ Priyanka Pathak vs The State Of Bihar on 17 February, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.941 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.617 of 2024
======================================================
Priyanka Devi @ Priyanka Pathak W/o Niraj Kumar Pathak, Resident of
Village and P.O.- Niyazipur, P.S. Simri, District- Buxar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, District- Gaya.
6. The Block Development Officer, Simri-cum-Executive Officer, Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri, District- Buxar.
7. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, District- Buxar.
8. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Simri, District- Buxar.
9. Chandan Kumar, Son of Subhash Kumar, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
10. Pramod Mishra, Son of Kanhaiya Mishra, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
11. Asha Devi, Wife of Bachan Mallah, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
12. Vijay Bin, Son of Chhathu Bin, The member of Block Panchayat Samiti,
Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
13. Santosh Yadav, Son of Kesho Yadav, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
14. Sangeeta Kumari, Wife of Nirmal Kumar Yadav, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
15. Pushpa Dvi, Wife of Om Prakash Singh, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
16. Dinesh Kumar Sahu, Son of Sati Sahu, The member of Block Panchayat
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
2/39
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
17. Moti Jhariya Devi, Wife of Shiv Munni Yadav, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
18. Angad Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Byas Singh, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
19. Sushila Devi, Wife of Satyanarayan Dubey, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
20. Sima Devi, Wife of Dinesh Singh, The member of Block Panchayat Samiti,
Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
21. Anshu Kumari, wife of Rohit Kumar, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
22. Rachna Kumari, Wife of Pintu Kumar Yadav, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
23. Pinki Devi, Wife of Sri Bhagwan Singh, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
24. Ajay Kumar Ojha, Son of Ramashankar Ojha, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
25. Surajwanti Devi, Son of Srinath Ram, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
26. Devkaliya Devi, Son of Yamuna Yadav, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
27. Virendra Paswan, Son of Late Banwari Paswan, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
28. Subhash Gond, Son of Bhimal Gond, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
29. Manoj Kumar Ojha, Son of Shambhu Nath Ojha, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
3/39
Buxar.
30. Bimlesh Kumar Rai, Son of Shiv Kripal Rai, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
31. Deepak Kumar, son of Gopal Prasad, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
32. Chandan Kumar, Son of Subhash Kumar, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
33. Kamlawati Devi, Wife of Hareram Kunwar, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
34. Simpi Devi, wife of Surendra Kumar Paswan, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
35. Gayatri Devi, Wife of Pankaj Dubey, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
36. Reema Rai, Wife of Jay Prakash Rai, The member of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Buxar.
37. Puja Devi, Wife of Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya, The member of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Simri through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Simri, P.S.- Mufassil, District-
Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay, GA-5
Mr. Rakesh Kr. Ranjan, AC to GA-5
Mr. Pratik Kr. Sinha, AC to GA-5
For State Election Commission: Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate
For Private Respondents : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Basant Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Ambuj, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
4/39
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 17-02-2026
The instant Letters Patent Appeal challenges an
order passed in CWJC No.617 of 2024 by the learned Single
Judge, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition, bearing
CWJC No.617 of 2024, was dismissed. The writ petitioner has
filed the instant appeal on the ground of non-consideration of
relevant materials and failure on the part of the learned Single
Judge to appreciate the relevant provision of law.
2. It is pertinent to mention, at the outset, that the
petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Simri Block on
30.12.2021
. On 01.01.2024, a requisition for No Confidence
Motion against the petitioner addressed to the Executive Officer
(respondent No.6) without mentioning any charge in the said
requisitions were filed.
3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/
petitioner that the said requisitions were not filed for convening
Special Meeting and it was also not addressed to the appellant.
Therefore, the alleged requisitions were in complete violation of
the provisions contained in Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat
Raj Act, 2006. In pursuance to the said requisitions, dated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
5/39
01.01.2024, the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO,
Simri, Buxar issued two different letters to the appellant/
petitioner but it was submitted to Up-Pramukh (respondent
No.9) requesting him to fix a date for special meeting on No
Confidence Motion against the appellant/petitioner.
4. The Executive Officer in violation of the
provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 fixed the date
of Special Meeting on 15.01.2024 to consider No Confidence
Motion against the appellant. On 08.01.2024, the Up-Pramukh
sent a letter to the respondent No.6, B.D.O., challenging his
authority to convene such meeting on 15.01.2024. The B.D.O.,
thereafter, fixed the date of Special Meeting on 18.01.2024.
Against the said notice of convening Special Meeting, the
appellant/petitioner, being the elected Pramukh of the Panchayat
Samiti, challenged the notices dated 08.01.2024 and 09.01.2024
by filing CWJC No.617 of 2024. By an order dated 11.01.2024,
the Hon’ble Single Judge passed an order of interim stay of the
Special Meeting of No Confidence Motion proposed to be held
on 18.01.2024. On 18.01.2024, the writ petition was dismissed
for default. However, the respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed a counter
affidavit in CWJC No.617 of 2024, though it was dismissed for
default on 18.01.2024.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
6/39
5. Subsequently, the writ petition was restored to its
file upon an application filed by the appellant/petitioner bearing
M.J.C. No.566 of 2024. On 09.02.2024, some members of the
Panchayat again filed requisitions for convening meeting in
respect of No Confidence Motion. The said requisition was not
either addressed or served to the Pramukh as per the provisions
of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, on the other
hand, it was again addressed to the Executive Officer, Panchayat
Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar. On 10.02.2024, respondent
No.6 wrote a letter to the Pramukh requesting him to convene a
Special Meeting and fixed the date for consideration of No
Confidence Motion. On 11.02.2024 and 12.02.2024, the
appellant filed representations before all Executive Authorities
including the District Magistrate-cum-D.E.O.. However, without
waiting for the mandatory statutory period of 15 days, the
Executive Officer issued a letter to Up-Pramukh, Simiri to
Pramukh, Simri for fixing the date of Special Meeting. On
16.02.2024, the writ petition bearing CWJC No.617 of 2024
was restored to its original position and with the restoration of
the writ petition, the interim order of stay passed by the learned
Single Judge on 11.01.2024 was also restored. However,
violating the order of stay, the Executive Officer, Panchayat
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
7/39
Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar illegally and deliberately fixed
the date of Special Meeting on 27.02.2024. The appellant filed a
representation before the Executive Officer, stating, inter-alia,
that an order of stay against convening and holding such
meeting was in operation and requested the Executive Officer to
not hold such meeting on 27.02.2024. However, the said
meeting was conducted on 27.02.2024 inspite of an order of stay
against holding such meeting passed by the learned Single
Judge was in force. Vide order dated 11.03.2024, the Hon’ble
Single Judge directed the Additional Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar to conduct
thorough enquiry with respect to the affairs of the Executive
Officer, Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar and take
appropriate action.
6. On 23.03.2024 and 25.03.2024, the District
Magistrate and the Additional Chief Secretary held that the
Executive Officer illegally and arbitrarily fixed the date for
convening the Special Meeting on 18.01.2024. It was further
observed that the BDO ought to have restrained himself and
awaited for the Court’s order before convening any further
meeting. The Additional Chief Secretary also passed similar
order on 25.03.2024. However, the writ petition was finally
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
8/39
dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 06.09.2024.
7. Hence, the instant appeal.
8. The learned Advocate for the appellant at the
outset, draws our attention to paragraph No.23 of the impugned
judgment. Paragraph No.23 of the impugned judgment discusses
the entire factual event in the following words:-
“23. Having heard learned
counsel for the parties, it appears from the writ
petition that the petitioner has initially
challenged the requisition dated 01.01.2024
but in the subsequent development the present
writ petition has been dismissed for default on
18.01.2024 and thereafter, the respondents
requisitionist have given fresh application to
the Executive Officer cum Block Development
Officer, Simri, Buxar for initiating a proceeding
of No Confidence Motion afresh against the
Pramukh and Up Pramukh and the same was
received by the Respondent No. 6 on the same
day and after receiving the application dated
09.02.2024 from the private respondents, the
Respondent No. 6 vide memo no. 293 dated
10.02.2024 had requested the petitioner for
fixing the date and time of Special Meeting for
No Confidence Motion but the petitioner could
not receive the letter dated 09.02.2024, then
letter dated 10.02.2024 has been affixed on her
main door of her house on the same day i.e. on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
9/39
10.02.2024 and despite knowledge of the
aforesaid, the petitioner could not fix the date
and time of Special Meeting till 15.02.2024.
Then the Respondent No. 6 had requested the
Up Pramukh as per provision stipulated in
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act for fixing the date
and time for Special Meeting for discussion of
No Confidence Motion. When the Pramukh
(petitioner) and Up-Pramukh, Simri Block have
not fixed the date and time of Special Meeting
for No Confidence Motion, then more than
1/3rd members (i.e. 20 Block Samiti Member)
of Simri Prakhand have given application
dated 16.02.2024 to the Respondent No. 6
under Section 44 (3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat
Raj Act, 2006 for fixing the date on 27.02.2024
at 1:00 pm for Special Meeting of No
Confidence Motion against the Pramukh and
Up Pramukh. And it appears that after
receiving the application dated 16.02.2024
given by more than 1/3rd members of Simri
Block Samiti, then the Respondent No.6 under
Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 has issued the memo no. 361 dated
17.02.2024 to the Sub Divisional Officer,
Dumraw for providing the Police force on
27.02.2024. The District Magistrate, Buxar by
invoking the power under Section 157 of the
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act has nominated Sri
Syed Shahjad Ahmad, Learned Deputy
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
10/39
Collector Land Reforms, Dumraw as Special
Officer for convening the Special Meeting
which was held on 27.02.2024. Thereafter, the
petitioner has filed the MJC No. 566 of 2024
(Restoration Petition) without serving the copy
to the respondents and this Court vide order
dated 16.02.2024 restored the present writ
petition in its original file and the Special
Meeting was held on 27.02.2024 in which out
of 29 members only 20 members have given
vote in favour of No Confidence Motion and
accordingly the Pramukh and Up Pramukh,
Simri have lost the majority of the House.”
9. The learned Advocate for the appellant next takes
us to Order No.3 dated 26.02.2024 passed in CWJC No.617 of
2024. Paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the order dated 26.02.2024 is
relevant and quoted below:-
“3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the
action of the Executive Officer-cum-Block
Development Officer, Simri Panchayat Samiti,
District- Buxar, which is in complete defiance of
order dated 11.01.2024 passed by this Court.
4. It appears that Executive
Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Simri
Panchayat Samiti, has not only disobeyed the
order of this Court, but, at the same time, he
has frustrated the democratic process by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
11/39interfering illegally and to explain his bona
fide, he must be present in the Court at 10:30
A.M. on 07.03.2024.”
10. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant
also refers to the order, dated 11.01.2024, whereby and
whereunder, the learned Single Judge restrained the respondents
from holding Special Meeting of No Confidence proposed to be
convened on 18.01.2024, in the meantime. However, ignoring
the order of stay, the private respondents issued second
requisition on 09.02.2024 before the Executive Officer,
Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar requesting him again
to convene a Special Meeting on No Confidence. The Executive
Officer, then wrote a letter to the respondent No.6 on
10.02.2024 requesting him to convene a meeting to discuss No
Confidence Motion fixing a date of such meeting. Subsequently,
on 16.02.2024, the Executive Officer fixed the date of holding
Special Meeting on 27.02.2024.
11. It is submitted by the learned Advocate on
behalf of the appellant that second requisition was automatically
inoperative in view of the earlier stay granted on 11.01.2024. In
support of his contention, he refers to a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese
and others, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 378.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
12/39
12. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant
also refers to Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006,
which deals with the provisions for resignation and removal of
Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. Section 44 of the said Act runs
thus:-
“44. Resignation and Removal of
Pramukh and Up-Pramukh.–(1) The Pramukh
may resign his office by writing under his hand
and addressed to the Subdivisional Magistrate
and the Up-Pramukh may resign his office by
writing under his hand addressed to the
Pramukh and in the absence of Pramukh to the
Subdivisional Magistrate and the said office
shall be deemed to be vacant on the expiry of
seven days from the date of such resignation
unless within the said period of seven days he
withdraws such resignation by writing under
his hand addressed to the Sub Divisional
Magistrate or the Pramukh, as the case may be.
(2) A Pramukh or Up- Pramukh
shall vacate office if he ceases to be a member
of the Panchayat Samiti.
(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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
13/39specially 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 Panchayat Samiti, by not less than one third
of the total number of members elected directly
from the territorial constituencies of the
Panchayat 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.
(ii) No confidence motion shall not
be moved against the Pramukh or the Up-
Pramukh within the first two year period of
their tenure. {Such a no confidence motion may
be brought only once in the whole tenure of
Pramukh/Up-Pramukh.}
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
14/39
(iii) No confidence motion against
the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or both, as the
case may be, shall not be brought during the
last six months of the term of the Panchayat
Samiti as mentioned in section 39 (1) of this
Act.
(vi) Such reasons/charges, on the
basis of which no confidence motion has to be
moved against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh,
shall be clearly mentioned in the notice of
meeting called to consider the no confidence
motion.
(v) As soon as the meeting called
under this section begins, the presiding member
of this meeting shall read out the motion on
which the meeting has been called to consider
before the members present and declare it open
for discussion. Any discussion on the motion
shall not be adjourned.
(vi) During discussion, opportunity
shall be given to the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh
against whom no confidence motion has been
moved for his defence before the Panchayat
Samiti. The motion shall be put to vote on the
same day after discussion and shall take place
by secret ballot in the prescribed manner.
(vii) In case of no confidence
motion against a Pramukh, the meeting shall be
presided by the Up-Pramukh; in case of motion
against Up-Pramukh by the Pramukh and in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
15/39
case of motion against both Pramukh and Up-
Pramukh, by any member elected from among
the members of the Panchayat Samiti present in
the meeting.
In case of the post of Up-Pramukh
being vacant or his absence from the meeting
convened for discussion on no confidence
motion against the Pramukh or the post of
Pramukh being vacant or his absence from the
meeting convened for discussion on no
confidence motion against the Up-Pramukh, as
the case may be, shall be presided over by any
member elected from amongst the directly
elected members from the territorial
constituency of the Panchayat Samiti present in
the meeting.
(4) Without prejudice to the
provisions under this Act, if in opinion of the
[Government] having territorial jurisdiction
over the Panchayat Samiti, a Pramukh or an
Up-Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti absents
himself without sufficient cause for more than
three consecutive meetings or sittings or
willfully omits or refuses to perform his duties
and functions under this Act, or abuses the
power vested in him or is found to be guilty of
misconduct in the discharge of his duties
[Disobedience of order of an authority
established by law or] or becomes physically or
mentally incapacitated for performing his
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
16/39
duties or is absconding being an accused in a
criminal case for more than six months, the
[Government] may, after giving the Pramukh or
Up-Pramukh, as the case may be, a reasonable
opportunity for explanation, by order, remove
such Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, as the case may
be, from office;
[Provided when a system of Lok
Prahari, instiutted under sub-section (5) of
Section- 152 comes into force by a valid
notification of the State Government, the
Government may only pass order of removal of
such Pramukh/Up-Pramukh, as the case may be
in the light of in inquiry and recommendation of
Lok Prahari for the removal.]
[The Pramukh or Up-Pramukh so
removed on the charge of being found guilty of
misuse of vested powers or of misconduct in the
discharge of his duties shall not be eligible for
election to any Panchayat bodies till further
five years from the date of such removal. The
Pramukh or Up-Pramukh so removed on rest of
the charges shall not be eligible for re-election
as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh during the
remaining term of office of such Panchayat
Samiti.]
(5) A Pramukh or Up- Pramukh
removed from his office under sub-section (4)
may also be removed by the Government from
membership of the Panchayat Samiti.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
17/39
13. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant
further contends that sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 states that as soon as a resolution
expressing want of confidence is passed by a majority of the
total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a
meeting specially convened for the purpose, a Pramukh/Up-
Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have
vacated his office forthwith.
14. Second part of the sub-section (3) of Section 44
of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, clearly stipulates that the
requisition for such a Special Meeting shall be presented to the
Pramukh in-writing with a copy of the Executive Officer of the
Panchayat Samiti, by not less than one third of the total number
of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies of
the Panchayat Samiti. On receipt of such requisition, the
Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the
notice of 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 fixed a date for such meeting and require the Executive
Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
18/39
as may be necessary to convene the meeting. The Executive
Officer shall necessarily issue such notice in time and
convene meeting. Finally, 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.
15. It is contended on behalf of the learned
Advocate on behalf of the appellant that the requisitionist never
issued any requisition for the meeting of No Confidence to the
Pramukh in-writing as mandated by the second part of Section
44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Practically, the said
provision contains a detailed procedure for convening Special
Meeting, if the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh fails to convene such
meeting on the basis of requisitions.
16. Thus, the appellant has challenged the judgment
of the Hon’ble Single Judge passed in CWJC No.617 of 2024 on
the following grounds:
(I) Requisition to convene Special
Meeting was not in conformity with the
provision of Section 44(3) of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and the said
requisition is void ab-initio.
(II) In view of restoration of the
writ petition after it was dismissed for default to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
19/39its original file, the second requisition is also
void.
(III) In the alleged requisition,
there was no charge of misconduct. The
requisitions (Annexure-2 series in writ petition)
were not addressed to the Pramukh.”
17. The Up-Pramukh had no authority to convene
the meeting of No Confidence on 15.01.2024 on the basis of
Letter No.2 dated 01.01.2024 issued by the Executive Officer,
Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar on the basis of the
requisitions, which was void ab-initio.
18. The Executive Officer also acted illegally and
without jurisdiction by issuing a notice dated 09.01.2024 fixing
the date of meeting on 18.01.2024.
19. It is submitted by the learned Advocate on
behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not
consider the above-mentioned aspects and dismissed the writ
petition, which is not in accordance with law.
20. In support of his argument, learned Advocate on
behalf of the appellant refers to a decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in Munni Khatun Vs. State of Bihar through the
Chief Secretary and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat
938, wherein it was held by the Division Bench in Paragraph
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
20/39
No.5 of the report as hereunder :-
“5. Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 specifies that the requisition for a
special meeting to consider the no confidence
motion shall be presented to the Pramukh in
writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of
the Panchayat Samiti, by not less than one
third of the total number of members elected
directly from the territorial constituencies. The
provision then provides that the Executive
Officer should immediately bring the
requisition to the notice of the Pramukh and the
Pramukh should convene such meeting on a
date falling within 15 days of such requisition.
It is further provided that if the Pramukh fails
to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or
the requisitionists themselves i.e. one third of
the total number of members elected directly,
could call for a special meeting. It is crystal
clear that the right of the Up-Pramukh or the
requisitionists to call for a special meeting
would arise only on the expiry of the first
fifteen days.”
21. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant
also refers to a five Judges Bench decision in the case of High
Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267. The ratio of the
said decision is not applicable under the facts and circumstances
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
21/39
of this case. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was pleased to consider the scope of direction contained
in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private
Limited and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299. In Asian Resurfacing (supra), it
was directed that the cases where an order of stay is granted by
the High Court must be decided within a period of six months,
failing which the order of stay would automatically stand
vacated. Consequent direction was also passed to dispose of the
cases within six months by the High Court, where stay was
granted.
22. In High Court Bar Association, Allahabad
(supra), the five Judges Bench was pleased to hold that the
directions issued in Asian Resurfacing (supra) virtually amounts
to judicial legislation, which is impermissible. Only legislature
can direct disposal of cases of particular category within
specified time and provisions to the effect in statute are usually
construed to be directed.
23. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant
next refers to a decision of Usha Devi Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors., reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Pat 8243 : (2014) 4 PLJR
648. Paragraph Nos.6, 7 & 8 of the report is relevant and quoted
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
22/39
below:-
“6. From a bare reading of what
Section 44(3) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 conveys, it becomes clear that when
requisition for a special meeting is presented to
a Pramukh, it is the Pramukh, who has to
decide the date of the special meeting and in
terms of the decision so taken by the Pramukh,
the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti
is required to issue notice and when the
Pramukh fails to convene the meeting within 15
days of such requisition, one third of the total
number of the directly elected members of the
Panchayat Samiti is vested with a right to fix a
date of such special meeting and require the
Executive Officer to give a notice accordingly
to the members and take such action as may be
necessary to convene the special meeting,
whereupon the Executive Officer shall issue
necessary notice.
7. It further follows from what
Section 44(3) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006, embodies is that a notice of special
meeting may be issued in two different and
distinct circumstances, namely, (1) when the
Pramukh takes, a decision, in terms of Section
44 of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, to
convene the special meeting or (ii) on the
failure on the part, of the Pramukh to convene
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
23/39the meeting within 15 days of such requisition,
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 take such action as may be
necessary to convene the special meeting.
8. In neither case, therefore, the
Executive Officer is vested with the power to
choose the date, of holding the special meeting,
the power to select the date of holding of the
special meeting has to be exercised either by
the Pramukh or by one third of the directly
elected members of the Panchayat Samiti as
indicated hereinbefore.”
24. On the same issue, the learned Advocate on
behalf of the appellant refers to the case of Madhubala Singh
Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2015 SCC OnLine
Pat 356 : (2015) 3 PLJR 491; Arti Kumari Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors., reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Pat 2132; and
Sindhu Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in
2001 SCC OnLine Pat 872. In all the above-mentioned
decisions, the scope of Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 fail for discussion and it was held that requisition for
No Confidence Motion would have to be served to the Pramukh
and if Pramukh fails to convene any meeting within 15 days
from the date of service of requisition, the Executive Officer
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
24/39
shall step in and convene Special Meeting.
25. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant
further submits that vide order dated 11.01.2024, the learned
Single Judge directed to issue notice to the respondent Nos.9 to
37. The private respondents as well as the Executive Officer,
Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar were directed to file
their counter affidavits. The Members of the Panchayat Samiti,
who moved for Special Meeting bringing No Confidence
Motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh were directed to
bring on record as to whether the requisition was made to the
Pramukh-petitioner and finally it was directed that “in the
meantime” the Special Meeting of No Confidence, which was
proposed to be convened on 18.01.2024 shall remain stayed.
26. Thus, the learned Advocate on behalf of the
appellant submits that the order of stay continued till service of
notice upon the private respondents, filing of counter affidavit
by them and final adjudication of the writ petition. The
impugned meeting was held by the Executive Officer,
Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar, while there was a
restraining order from the High Court against convening the
Special Meeting.
27. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
25/39
respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits at the outset that the writ petition
filed by the appellant suffered from wrong and concocted
factual assertion and it is absolutely false to contend that the
provisions of Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,
2006 was not properly complied with. In order to substantiate
his argument, he refers to paragraph No.24 of the counter
affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the writ petition. In
paragraph No.24 of the counter affidavit, it was submitted by
the respondent Nos.4 to 7 that the members of the Panchayat
Samiti served an application for no confidence motion on
01.01.2024 against Prakhand Pramukh and requested her for
convening Special Meeting by fixing the date for No
Confidence Motion and the copy of the same was forwarded to
the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri,
Buxar. When the Prakhand Pramukh and Up-Pramukh failed to
convene the Special Meeting for No Confidence, several other
Panchayat Samiti Members also requested them for convening
the Special Meeting.
28. In support of his contention, he referred to
Annexure-R/1 being an application submitted by the elected
members of Panchayat Samiti, Simri, addressed to the Prakhand
Pramukh of Simri Panchayat Samiti to convene the meeting.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
26/39
The copy of the said notice was sent to the Executive Officer,
Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar.
29. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondent Nos.4 to 7 further submits that the said notice was
duly received by the husband of the Prakhand Pramukh on her
behalf. It is urged by him that when a notice is received by the
male family member of the noticee, it is held to be a valid
service, on the principles laid down in Order-V Rule-15 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
30. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondent Nos.4 to 7 next takes us to page-10 of the impugned
judgment to show that the Writ-Court also held that the
petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution with unclean hand suppressing the material fact
that her husband received the notice personally on 01.01.2024,
as the appellant/petitioner allegedly was not present either at her
village or at her office and that she was staying in her Mayka or
in Hospital in connection with medical treatment. After
dismissal of the writ petition for default, the requisitionist made
further application to the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti-
cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar for initiating the proceeding of No
Confidence Motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
27/39
09.02.2024 and the Executive Officer received the said
application on 09.02.2024 itself. By a letter dated 10.10.2024,
he requested the writ-petitioner/appellant for fixing the date and
time of Special Meeting for No Confidence Motion but the
appellant/petitioner did not receive the said letter dated
09.02.2024. The letter was served upon her on 10.02.2024 by
affixing a copy of the same on the main door of her house.
31. The said fact of service of notice upon
Prakhand Pramukh was not denied by the appellant by filing any
supplementary affidavit or rejoinder in the writ petition.
Therefore, the respondents’ case that the requisition notice for
convening Special Meeting for No Confidence dated 01.01.2024
was validly served upon the Prakhand Pramukh and again the
letter of request issued by the Executive Officer, Simri for
convening special meeting, was served on 10.02.2024 by
affixation, are held to be proved on the principles of non-
traverse.
32. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondent Nos.4 to 7 further brings our attention to the letters
dated 04.01.2024 and 08.01.2024 addressed to the appellant and
Up-Pramukh of Simiri Panchayat Samiti, informing them that
the office of the Executive Officer received a letter on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
28/39
01.01.2024 for convening a Special Meeting for No Confidence
and the appellant was requested to convene such meeting, but
the appellant also did not pay any heed to such letter written by
the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri,
Buxar.
33. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondent Nos.4 to 7 further argues that the appellant
admittedly received the second notice but she had chosen not to
appear. Therefore, she waived her authority to convene the
Special Meeting.
34. In support of his contention, the learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 refers to a
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Shamshad Khatun Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in
2010 SCC OnLine Pat 2006 : (2010) 1 PLJR 929. It is held by
the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment that
waiver is a question of fact which depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the case of waiver of any
provisions of the statute, it is necessary to prove that there was
conscious relinquishment of the advantage of such provisions
of the statute (see para-15 of the above-mentioned decision).
35. It is contended by the learned S Senior Counsel
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
29/39
on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 that the appellant did not
exercise her Authority under Section 44(3) of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 even after receipt of notice dated
01.01.2024 and 04.01.2024 and subsequently on 07.02.2024.
Thus, she waived her authority to convene such meeting, which
compelled the Executive Officer to convene the Special Meeting
for No Confidence.
36. Therefore, there was no violation of Section
44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and the learned
Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the writ
petition.
37. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondent Nos.4 to 7 next submits that the writ petition was
dismissed for default on 18.01.2024. Prior to that, vide Order
No.2, dated 11.01.2024, the learned Single Judge passed an
order in CWJC No.617 of 2024, directing the respondents to file
counter affidavit and “in the meantime” granted an order of stay
restraining the respondents from convening any Special Meeting
for No Confidence Motion.
38. On 16.02.2024, the writ petition was restored to
its file. In the meantime, on 09.02.2024 when the writ petition
was dismissed for default, the requisitionist again filed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
30/39
requisition for convening special meeting for no confidence.
The said requisition was not addressed to the Pramukh but it
was addressed to the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti-cum-
BDO, Simri, Buxar. Admittedly, on 10.02.2024 the Executive
Officer requested the Pramukh to hold a meeting. On
16.02.2024, the writ petition was restored to its file and the
order of stay was revived. Even after that, the Executive Officer
conducted a meeting on 27.02.2024 and the No Confidence
Motion was passed against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh.
39. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits that the No
Confidence Motion dated 27.02.2024 was the consequential
action of the singular requisition dated 01.01.2024, which was
addressed to and received by the husband of the appellant.
Subsequent, letters by the Executive Officer were only the
consequential letters to the writ-petitioner, seeking date of fixing
Special Meeting. Neither the members of the Panchayat Samiti
nor the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri,
Buxar had ever given second requisition, on the basis whereof
No Confidence Motion dated 27.02.2024 was brought against
the writ-petitioner/appellant. As such there is no application of
Section 44(3)(ii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
31/39
40. With regard to the legal position as to the effect
of the order of stay granted by the learned Single Judge in
CWJC No.617 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported
in (2007) 3 SCC 470, paragraph Nos.10, 11 & 12 of the
aforesaid decision is relevant and quoted below:-
“10. Mr Ravindra Shrivastava,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, on the other hand, would
submit that having regard to the nature of the
order of injunction passed on 30-8-1997, it
must be held to have remained operative till
19-8-2000 when the suit was dismissed for
default.
11. The short question which
arises for consideration in this appeal is as to
whether the order of ad interim injunction
granted by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Panipat, was operative till 9-9-1998
or 19-8-2000. We have noticed hereinbefore
the nature of the orders passed by the learned
Civil Judge. Although in its order dated 30-8-
1997, the learned Civil Judge, used the term
“in the meantime”, which was repeated in its
order dated 24-9-1997, but in the subsequent
orders beginning from 29-11-1997, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
32/39expression used was “till then”.
12. The term of the order of the
learned Judge, in our opinion, does not leave
any manner of doubt whatsoever that the
interim order was only extended from time to
time. The interim order having been extended
till a particular date, the contention raised by
the respondents herein that they were under a
bona fide belief that the injunction order
would continue till it was vacated cannot be
accepted.”
41. In the context as to whether, the order of interim
injunction granted by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Panipat was operative till 09.09.1998 or 19.08.2000, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the learned Civil Judge
used the term “in the meantime” which was repeated in its order
dated 24.09.1997 but in the subsequent orders beginning from
29.11.1997 the expression used was “till then”.
42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the
orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division),
Panipat extending the period of interim injunction time to time
and held that the interim order was only extended till a
particular date and under such circumstance, the contention
raised by the respondents that the interim injunction order
would continued till it was vacated, was not accepted.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
33/39
43. It is submitted by the learned S Senior Counsel
on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 that the entire gamut of
the order dated 11.01.2024 was that the interim order of stay
would remain in force till the filing of the counter affidavit by
the respondents and not beyond that.
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., reported in (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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
34/39is the view taken by a to 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
35/39can. 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 requisitionand would, thus,
not call for any special meeting and
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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
36/39
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 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
37/39
whom No Confidence is proposed, always can go hiding or
otherwise delay the receipt of requisition, defeating the purpose
of sending the requisition itself.
46. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits that the appellant purposefully
suppressed the fact of service of requisition notice, dated
01.01.2024. She had no respect for the truth. She shamelessly
resorted to falsehood and unethical means for achieving her
goal.
47. While the appellant was absolutely silent with
regard to service of notice, dated 01.01.2024, which was
received by her husband, she challenged the final decision in
support of No Confidence Motion, dated 27.02.2024, taken by
the majority members of the Panchayat Samiti, Simri, Buxar.
48. The learned Advocate on behalf of the State has
adopted the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 7.
49. Having heard the learned Counsels for the
parties and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record,
the decisions cited by the learned Advocates on behalf of both
the parties and the impugned order, we are in agreement with
the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
38/39
of the respondents. The appellant did not challenge the legality,
validity and service of notice, dated 01.01.2024 for bringing No
Confidence Motion against her and the Up-Pramukh of the
Panchayat Samiti. The notice, dated 01.01.2024 was served to
the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer,
Panchayat Samiti-cum-BDO, Simri, Buxar. It was signed by
more than one third of the total number of members elected
directly from the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat
Samiti. The Executive Officer on the very date of receipt of the
requisition immediately brought the said facts to the notice of
the Pramukh requesting her to convene a meeting, falling within
15 days of such requisition, since, the Pramukh did not take any
action over such requisition and more than one third of the total
number of directly elected members required the Executive
Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as
may be necessary to convene the meeting.
50. The course of events suggest that the Pramukh
did not take any action on the requisition served by the
requisitionist. Therefore, the Executive Officer stepped in. The
action of the Executive Officer (respondent No.6) cannot be
held to be illegal or arbitrary or in violation of the statutory
provision contained in Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.941 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
39/39
51. For the reasons stated above, we did not find
any reason for interference against the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge.
52. Accordingly, the instant Letters Patent Appeal,
is therefore, dismissed on contest.
53. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
I agree.
( Dr. Anshuman, J)
mdrashid/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 15.01.2026 Uploading Date 17.02.2026 Transmission Date 17.02.2026
