Patna High Court

Ranju DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 14 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The requisition and the subsequent letters fixing the special meeting were ultra vires and are set aside.

Summary

Ranju Devi, the elected Pramukh of the Sonbarsa Block Panchayat Samiti, filed a writ petition challenging a requisition and subsequent letters that sought to convene a special meeting to consider a no‑confidence motion against her. She contended that the requisition was not presented to her as mandated by Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and that the meeting date was fixed in violation of the Supreme Court’s direction in Chitra Kumari v. State of Bihar, which barred a second no‑confidence motion. The respondents argued that procedural requirements were met, but the Court found that the requisition and the letters did not comply with the statutory procedure or the higher‑court directive. The Court held that the requisition and the letters fixing the meeting on 3 October 2025 were ultra vires and set them aside. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned documents. The decision reinforces strict adherence to the procedural safeguards under the Panchayat Raj statutes. The Court also emphasized that no‑confidence motions cannot be moved twice against the same Pramukh during a single tenure.

Issues considered

Whether the requisition for a special meeting to consider a no‑confidence motion complied with Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Whether the meeting date fixation violated the Supreme Court’s order in Chitra Kumari v. State of Bihar prohibiting a second no‑confidence motion.
Whether the direction issued by the Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, must be followed in convening such meetings.

Legislation cited

Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 — s. 44(3)
Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 — s. 10

Subjects

No confidence motion
Panchayat Raj
Section 44
Certiorari
Procedural compliance
Supreme Court direction
Block Panchayat

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15001 of 2025
======================================================
Ranju Devi wife of Birendra Kumar @ Birendra Kumar Shekhar, Resident of
Village- Pararia, Ward No. 15, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/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, Saharsa.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharsa, District- Saharsa.
6. The Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa-cum-Executive Officer, Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa.
7. Minu Devi, wife of Anil Sah, the members of Block Panchayat Samiti,
Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer,
Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
8. Umesh Mistri, son of Harilal Mistri, the members of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
9. Dhirendra Ram, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
10. Chandan Thakur, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
11. Gauri Kumari, wife of Mithu Rajak, the members of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
12. Arvind Kumar Sharma, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of
Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-
cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
13. Anirudh Prasad Yadav, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of
Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-
cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
14. Ramjee Mukhiya, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
15. Chanda Devi, wife of Shambhu Yadav, the members of Block Panchayat
Patna High Court CWJC No.15001 of 2025(8) dt.14-05-2026
2/8

Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
16. Lalita Devi, wife of Gajendra Sah, the members of Block Panchayat Samiti,
Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer,
Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
17. Kumari Khusbhu Devi, wife of Rajnikant Kumar, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
18. Niro Devi, wife of Shiv Kumar Bhagat, the members of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
19. Sulekha Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
20. Rubi Kumari, wife of Chandan Yadav, the members of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
21. Soni Kumari, wife of Balkrishna Jha, the members of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.
22. Chandradev Mandal, son of not known to the petitioner. the members of
Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-
cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
23. Aazad Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
24. Rani Bharti, wife of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
25. Kashi Sah, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
26. Shankar Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
27. Anuradha Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15001 of 2025(8) dt.14-05-2026
3/8

28. Sarita Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, the members of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa,
District-Saharsa.
29. Beauty Kumari, wife of Bhushan Yadav, the members of Block Panchayat
Samiti, Sonbarsa, through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, P.S. Sonbarsa, District-Saharsa.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Government Pleader (19)
Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER

8 14-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the

respondents/requisitionists.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for

the following relief (s) :-

“1. (i) For issuance of writ in the nature
of Certiorari for quashing of the Letter dated
06.09.2025 vide letter No. 1141-2Annexure-P/17),
issued under the signature of Executive Officer,
(Panchayat Samiti)-cum-Block Development
Officer, Sonbarsa, Saharsa (Respondent No. 6),
whereby and where under, a request has been made
to fix the date for convening the Special Meeting
with respect to consider of want of No Confidence
Motion, which is not permissible in pursuance of
direction issued in the Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No. (S) No. 12490 of 2024 and the same is in
complete violation of Section-44 (3) of the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 as well as Section-10 of
Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 and
also to quash the other referential letter vide letter
No. 2017 dated 04.09.2025 issued by the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.15001 of 2025(8) dt.14-05-2026
4/8

Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharsa.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the requisition dated NIL
(No date) directly received by No. 6. the Block
Respondent Development Officer, Sonbarsa-cum-
Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti,
Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa received on
27.08.2025 addressed to the post of Pramukh, not
the person, who holds the post of Pramukh without
presenting the requisition for such Special Meeting
to the Petitioner in writing in complete teeth of
Section-44(3)(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,
2006, the said resolution 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 (ExecutiveOfficer) by the
requisitionists /some of the members of the
Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa out of total 24
Panchayat Samiti (elected) in complete violation of
direction issued by Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide
Letter dated 23.01.2025 contained in Memo No.
1376 addressed to the all District Magistrates,
Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad and all the
District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bihar by referring
the Diary No. 672/2025 (Chitra Kumari Vs. State
of Bihar and Others) by annexing the order dated
15.01.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
whereby and where under the State of Bihar and its
authorities are directed to differ all theSecond
motions till further orders are passed by this
Court.
(iii) 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.15001 of 2025(8) dt.14-05-2026
5/8

post of Pramukh/Up-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 shall
be brought against the Pramukh, who holds the
post and the same is against theprocedure
prescribed under Sub-Section 3 (i) and 3 (ii) of
Section 44 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 2006 and
the direction given by the Joint Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna in light of the order dated 15.01.2025
passed in Diary No. 672/2025 quoting the gist of
the order of the Apex Court, by making mal
practices, the requisition so submitted by the
requisitionists is not a valid requisition in the eye
of law and in absence of the same, the entire
proceeding/procedures adopted against the
petitioner for want of No Confidence Motion is null
and void, therefore, no further action is required to
be taken in pursuance, thereto, because law is very
clear that No Confidence Motion shall not be
moved / brought against the Pramukh / Up
Pramukh twicein the whole tenure of the
Pramukh / Up Pramukh.
(iv) For staying the operation of the
communication dated 06.09.2025 vide Letter No.
1141-2 issued by the Respondent No. 6 to fix the
date for convening the Special Meeting for want of
20 No Confidence Motion in pursuance of the
requisition dated 27.08.2025 after lapse of 9 days
and also the entire procedures adopted by the
Respondents against the petitioner for want of No
Confidence Motion in complete violation of the
mandatory requirements embodied in the statute
and also in violation of the direction issued by the
competent authorities of the Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna in
pursuance of the direction / order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
(v) For any other relief/reliefs for which
the petitioner is entitled for in the facts and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15001 of 2025(8) dt.14-05-2026
6/8

circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the

respondents moved a requisition for calling a special meeting to

consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner, an

elected pramukh. The same was not presented to the petitioner

as required under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 but was

received by the Executive Officer on 27.8.2025 and the

Executive Officer wrote to the petitioner on 6.9.2025 asking the

petitioner to call a meeting to consider the no confidence motion

against him. Subsequently, by letter dated 24.9.2025, the

Executive Officer cum Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa

fixed the date of meeting for considering the no confidence

motion as 3.10.2025 at 11:30 am.

4. The petitioner by way of this writ application has

challenged the requisition (Annexure-P/3) calling for the no

confidence motion and received by the Executive Officer on

27.8.2025, the letter dated 6.9.2025 (Annexure-P/17) of the

Executive Officer as also the letter dated 24.9.2025 (Annexure-

P/22) fixing the date of meeting as 3.10.2025 in the instant writ

application.

5. The grounds for challenge by the petitioner are that

in violation of the provisions contained in section 44(3) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15001 of 2025(8) dt.14-05-2026
7/8

Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the requisition should have been

presented to the pramukh/petitioner which was not done, the

charges are vague and the date of special meeting was fixed

very strategically as 3.10.2025, there being Durga Puja holidays

in between.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made

elaborate submissions with respect to the provisions of the Bihar

Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and the various affidavits filed by the

requisitionists/respondents showing their malafide etc.

7. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be mentioned

here that learned counsel appearing for the

requisitionists/respondents submits that having considered the

matter and finding that there being a possibility that this Court

may find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner as also there is no strict compliance of the

provisions of section 44 of the Act, it is submitted that the

prayer made in the writ application be allowed and the

requisition as also the orders fixing the date of meeting etc be all

set aside.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner,

inspite of submission of learned counsel for the respondents to

allow the case still presses the writ application and submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.15001 of 2025(8) dt.14-05-2026
8/8

he has a number of submissions to make. When the writ

application itself is being allowed, no further submissions are

required to be made.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the material on record and especially the

submissions made by learned counsel for the

requisitionists/respondents, the orders impugned ie the

requisition contained in Annexure-P/3 as also the letter dated

24.9.2025 fixing the date of special meeting for considering the

no confidence motion against the petitioner as 3.10.2025 are

both set aside.

10. The writ application is allowed.

(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.