Patna High Court
Nirmala DeviversusThe State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the requisition was validly served, the procedural requirements of Section 44 were satisfied, the motion was not a prohibited second motion, and therefore dismissed the writ application.
Summary
Nirmala Devi, the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti Riga, challenged a resolution dated 17‑03‑2026 that removed her from office following a no‑confidence motion. She alleged that the requisition for the motion was not personally served as required by Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, that the motion constituted a prohibited second motion, and that the notice and meeting were invalid. The Court examined the service of the requisition, noting that it was delivered to the Pramukh via the Executive Officer and also via WhatsApp, which satisfies the statutory requirement of written service. It held that the provision does not demand personal delivery and that the requisition was validly served. The Court also clarified that Section 44(3)(ii) limits a motion to an individual’s tenure, not the office, so the motion against the petitioner was the first against her. Consequently, the procedural requirements were met, the resolution stood, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The requisition for a no‑confidence motion was served in compliance with Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
- Whether a second no‑confidence motion can be moved against a Pramukh within the same tenure under Section 44(3)(ii).
- Whether the notice dated 07‑03‑2026 and the special meeting convened on 17‑03‑2026 were valid.
- Whether a mandamus should be issued to restore the petitioner to the post of Pramukh.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 — s. 44(2), 44(3)(i), 44(3)(ii)
Subjects
- No‑confidence motion
- Bihar Panchayat Raj Act
- Section 44
- Writ petition
- Certiorari
- Mandamus
- Service of requisition
- Panchayat Samiti
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4948 of 2026
======================================================
Nirmala Devi, Wife of Jay Shankar Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-
Rewasi Tole, Katahari, P.O. - Rewasi, P.S. - Riga, District- Sitamarhi, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Bihar.
4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitamarhi, Bihar.
5. The Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Riga, Sitamarhi, Bihar.
6. The State Election Commission through the State Election Commissioner,
Bihar, Patna.
7. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna.
8. Laxmi Prasad Yadav, Son of- Ramjinis Rai, Resident of Village- Anhari,
P.O.- Riga P.S.-Riga, District-Sitamarhi
9. Ganesh Paswan, Son of Rambhajan Paswan, Resident of village-Riga, Tola-
Majhaura, P.O.-Riga, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
10. Santosh Paswan, Son of Janak Paswan, Resident of Village- Nazarpur, P.O.-
Bulakipur P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
11. Rajesh Rai, Son of Rambabu Rai, Resident of Village- Samodhi Tola, P.O.-
Balua, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
12. Sangeeta Devi, Wife of Sanjiv Kumar, Resident of Village and P.O.- Poshua,
Patania, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
13. Khushboo Kumari, Wife of- Abhishek Kumar, Resident of Village- Sangram
Fandah, P.O.-Riga P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
14. Banarsi Devi, Wife of- Ramsagar Sah, Resident of Village- Sighorwa, P.O.-
Rampur, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
15. Savita Kumari, Wife of- Dharmendra Paswan, Resident of Village-
Sahvapur, P.O-Kharsan, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
16. Ajay Rai @ Ajay Kumar, Son of Ram Babu Rai, Resident of Village-
Ramnagara, P.O.- Ramnagara, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
17. Dinesh Sah, Son of Kishori Sah, Resident of Village- Balua, P.O.-Balua,
P.S.-Riga, District-Sitamarhi.
18. Krishna Yadav, Wife of- Laxmi Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- and P.O.-
Anhari, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
19. Madhu Sinha, Wife of- Ajay Kumar Sinha, Resident of Village-Pakari, P.O.-
Basantpur, P.S.-Riga District- Sitamarhi
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
2/32
20. Kaneeja Khatoon, Wife of Md. Imamuddin Ansari, Resident of Village-
Bhagwanpur Piprahi, P.O.-Bhagwanpur Piprahi, P.S.-Riga, District-
Sitamarhi
21. Rakesh Kumar, Son of Shankar Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.- Rewasi,
P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi
22. Raj Kumar Rai, Son of- Rajendra Rai, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Bhagwanpur, P.S.-Parsauni, District- Sitamarhi.
23. Umesh Sah, Son of- Ramanandi Sah, Resident of Village- Kusumpur, P.O.-
Riga P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi.
24. Anoj Kumar, Son of- Dashrath Sah, Resident of Village- Sakhi, P.O.- Sakhi,
P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
25. Madhuri Kumari, Wife of- Dhiraj Mishra, Resident of Village- Panchhor,
P.O.- Kushmari P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi.
26. Kiran Devi, aged about-46 years. (Male), Wife of-Umesh Kumar, Resident
of Village- Pakari, P.O.-Riga P.S.-Riga, District-Sitamarhi.
27. Shamila Khatoon, Wife of Md. Isha, Resident of Village- Riga, P.O.-Riga,
P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi.
28. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village-
Shivnagar, P.C.-Riga P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi
29. Sunita Devi, Wife of Bhupendra Singh Resident of village- Kharsan, P.O.-
Kharsan, P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Devashish Giri, Advocate
Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25
For the State Election Comm. : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos.8 to 22 : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Shashi Priya, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 24 to 28 : Mr. Vikash Ratan Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 24-06-2026
Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Ramadhar Singh, learned Government Pleader
for the State of Bihar, Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
3/32
State Election Commission, Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned
Senior counsel for the respondent nos.8 to 22, 23 and 29 and
Mr. Vikash Ratan Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.24 to 28.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“I. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of
CERTIORARI to quash the resolution dated
17.03.2026 (Annexure-P13, Pg.58) illegally
passed for removal of the petitioner from the
post of the Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Riga in
the proceedings of the special meeting convened
on 17.03.2026.
II. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of
CERTIORARI to quash the notice dated
07.03.2026 vide letter no. 347 dated 07.03.2026
(Annexure-P10, Pg.46) illegally issued by the
Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Riga (Respondent
No.-05) directing the members to participate in
the special meeting on 17.03.2026 for motion of
“no-confidence” against the petitioner
(Pramukh).
III. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of
CERTIORARI to quash the letter dated
06.03.2026 (Annexure-P14, Pg.62) given by 14
elected members of the Panchayat Samiti Riga to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
4/32
the respondent no. 5 informing her about fixing
the date of special meeting on 17.03.2026 for no
confidence motion against the petitioner under
the purported exercise of their powers under
section 44(3)(i) of the Act.
IV. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of
CERTIORARI to quash the requisition dated
16.02.2026 (Annexure-P4, Pg.37) for no-
confidence motion against the petitioner
(Pramukh) received to the petitioner on
17.02.2026 from the staff of the office of the
Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Riga (Respondent
No.-05).
V. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of
MANDAMUS commanding the Respondents no.-
02-06 to restore the Petitioner to the post of
Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Riga with all
consequential benefits.
VI. For any other relief/reliefs to
which the petitioner is deemed to be entitled as
per the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was
elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Riga on
26.11.2021 and respondent nos.8 and 9 were elected as
Pramukh and Up-Pramukh on 29.12.2021. In a special meeting
held on 15.1.2024, a no-confidence motion was passed against
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
5/32
the then Pramukh Laxmi Prasad Yadav by 12 out of the 13
members attending the special meeting while one vote was
declared invalid. He was removed from the post of Pramukh.
The petitioner was elected as the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti,
Riga on 15.2.2024.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16.2.2026, she
received a requisition for no-confidence motion against the
Pramukh allegedly signed by 13 members through staff of the
office of the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Riga (respondent no.5). On
18.2.2026, she received a requisition sent by the respondent
no.5 on her whatsapp number.
5. A letter dated 23.1.2025 (Annexure-P/6) was
written by the Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Bihar to all the District Magistrates to ensure
compliance of the order dated 15.1.2025 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Chitra Devi vs. The State of Bihar
(Civil Diary no.672 of 2025) with respect to the second no-
confidence motion. It was stated therein that in view of the
direction of the Supreme Court, till further orders of the Court,
all second no-confidence motion not be acted upon in the State.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
6/32
above, she wrote a letter dated 21.2.2026 (Annexure P/7) to the
respondent no.5 asking him to take guidelines from the senior
officers with respect to the issues which were; (i) whether the
no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner would be
treated as first or second, (ii) there has been stay on all second
no-confidence motion till further orders as per letter dated
23.1.2025 of the Panchayati Raj Department and (iii) as per
section 44(3)(ii) of the Panchayat Raj Act, only one no-
confidence motion can be brought in the entire tenure.
7. The respondent no.5 wrote a letter dated 21.2.2026
(Annexure P/8) to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitamarhi
seeking guidelines on the above issue. In turn the District
Panchayat Raj Officer wrote a letter dated 21.2.2026 (Annexure
P/9) to the Special Work Officer, State Election Commission,
Bihar requesting for guidelines.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that while she was
waiting for the guidelines for taking further necessary action,
she was surprised to receive a notice dated 7.3.2026 issued by
the respondent no.5 informing that a special meeting for
discussing the no-confidence motion against her has been
scheduled for 17.3.2026 at 11.30 a.m.
9. A copy of the letter dated 26.2.2026 (Annexure-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
7/32
P/11) written by the Deputy Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department to the District Magistrate, Nalanda was sent by the
respondent no.5 to the petitioner on 6.3.2026 wherein it was
stated that as per the order dated 10.2.2026 passed in SLP
no.2168 of 2025 by the Supreme Court, a meeting of the no-
confidence motion shall be convened on 2/3rd of the total elected
members being present and the no-confidence shall be passed
on the same being voted upon by a majority of the total elected
members. On either of the two conditions not being satisfied,
the no-confidence motion will be treated to have been failed.
10. In the special meeting held on 17.3.2026, 17
members participated and 16 votes were cast in favour of the
no-confidence motion with one vote being declared invalid.
Thus, the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was
passed. It is this resolution dated 17.3.2026 removing the
petitioner as Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Riga which has led
to the filing of the instant writ application for the reliefs as
stated herein above.
11. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that no requisition was presented by
the requisitionists to the petitioner/Pramukh and thus there was
clear violation of section 44 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
8/32
(‘the Act’ in short). A motion of no-confidence having already
been brought against the office of the Pramukh i.e. the
petitioner’s predecessor Laxmi Prasad Yadav who was removed
in the special meeting held on 15.1.2024, the second motion of
no-confidence could not be brought in view of section 44(3)(ii)
of the Act. There was clear direction of the Panchayati Raj
Department as contained in letter dated 26.2.2026 (Annexure-
P/11) that in view of the order of the Supreme Court, all second
no-confidence motion had to be deferred. In the notice dated
7.3.2026 issued by the respondent no.5 besides the charges
being vague, false and superfluous, it nowhere mentions that the
special meeting was fixed by the Up-Pramukh or 1/3rd of the
total number of directly elected members. It was lastly
submitted that pursuant to the petitioner having sought
guidelines from the department, though a copy of the letter
dated 26.2.2026 written by the Panchayati Raj Department to
the District Magistrate, Nalanda was provided to him by
respondent no.5 on 6.3.2026, however the same did not deal
with the petitioner’s Panchayat Samiti nor with respect to the
issue as to what step was to be taken when the requisition of no-
confidence was not presented to the Pramukh as in the present
case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
9/32
12. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that in view of the above facts, it was not a
case of the petitioner having avoided the service of requisition
but was a case where the requisition was not presented to the
Pramukh/petitioner as required under section 44 of the Act. In
support of his submission, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Sheikh
Hassmuddin vs. State of Bihar; 2015 (3) PLJR 203, Komal
Anita Singh vs. State of Bihar; 2020 (1) BLJ 246, judgment of
this Court in the case of Sita Devi vs. The State of Bihar (order
dated 18.11.2019 in CWJC no.17147 of 2018), Arti vs. The
State of Bihar; 2015 (3) PLJR 276 and J. Jayalalithaa vs.
State of Karnataka; (2014) 2 SCC 401.
13. Opposing the writ application, learned
Government Pleader appearing for the State of Bihar submitted
that a bare perusal of the requisition for no-confidence motion
dated 17.2.2026 would show that a total of 13 Panchayat Samiti
members having affixed their signature on the same, there was
nothing suspicious about it. The petitioner herself having
approached the respondent no.5 for clarification shows that the
same was received by her and she had complete knowledge
about the requisition dated 17.2.2026 but refused to issue
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
10/32
receipt, as would be evident from the entries in the peon book. It
is for this reason that the documents were sent to the petitioner
on her whatsapp number which is duly acknowledged by her.
Referring to a letter dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure-R3/B) written
by the Joint Election Commissioner, State Election
Commission, Bihar to all the District Magistrates-cum-District
Election Officers (Panchayat), learned Government Pleader in
reference to Clause 7(4) of the said letter submitted that
complaints were being received by the State Election
Commission that on occasions the Pramukh refused to receive
the requisition for no-confidence motion. The instructions
mentioned in the said letter stated that in such circumstances, a
copy of the requisition given to the Executive Officer will be
deemed to have been given to the Pramukh. The Executive
Officer will immediately notify the Pramukh of the receipt of
the requisition both through official record and by letter and
request him to convene the meeting at the earliest in accordance
with the provisions of the Act.
14. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
State of Bihar submitted that the petitioner had full knowledge
of the said requisition and thus the requirement of service stands
fulfilled. The proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
11/32
with the provisions of law and the no-confidence motion was
passed against the Pramukh. Learned counsel submitted that
there has been no illegality in the process right from moving of
the requisition of no-confidence motion against the
Pramukh/petitioner up to passing of the same by the majority
required in law. As such the writ application be dismissed.
15. Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the respondent nos.8 to 22, who are the
requisitionists, submitted that on the petitioner who was the
Pramukh failing to discharge her duty diligently, the respondent
nos.8 to 22 presented the requisition on 16.2.2026 to the
Pramukh/petitioner calling for a special meeting for considering
the no-confidence against the petitioner. On the petitioner not
issuing any receiving upon the said requisition dated 16.2.2026,
respondent nos.8 to 22 sent the same to the office of respondent
no.5 who along with his staff issued a receipt on the same. It is
submitted that on the respondent no.5 sending the requisition to
the petitioner, she once again refused to issue any receiving. On
the petitioner failing to convene a special meeting within 15
days of the requisition for consideration of the no-confidence
motion against her, 14 elected members of the Panchayat Samiti
on 6.3.2026 (Annexure-R/2) scheduled the special meeting on
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
12/32
17.3.2026 and information was given with respect to the same to
the petitioner and respondent no.5. Further information was
given by the respondent no.5 to the petitioner by his letter dated
7.3.2026. In the special meeting held on 17.3.2026, the
Pramukh/petitioner did not appear. Out of the 17 members who
were present, 16 votes were cast in favour of the motion of no-
confidence against the Pramukh while one vote was declared
invalid.
16. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
respondent nos.8 to 22 submits that no-confidence motion
against the petitioner was passed in the special meeting held on
17.3.2026 in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There
being no illegality in the same nor the petitioner having been
able to point out any irregularity, the writ application be
dismissed.
17. Reliance has been placed by learned Senior
counsel appearing for the respondent nos.8 to 22 on the
judgments in the case of Ramendra Ram vs. The State of
Bihar; 2014 (4) PLJR 413, Priyanka Devi vs. The State of
Bihar (order dated 17.2.2026 in LPA no.941 of 2024),
Dharamsheela Kumari vs. Hemant Kumar; 2021 (3) PLJR
346, Komal Anita Singh vs. State of Bihar; 2020 (1) BLJ 246,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
13/32
Sheikh Hassmuddin vs. State of Bihar; 2015 (3) PLJR 203
and Arti vs. The State of Bihar; 2015(3) PLJR 276.
18. Mr. Vikash Ratan Bharti, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent nos.24 to 28 adopted the
submissions made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner and supported the case of the petitioner.
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
20. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
was elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Riga on
26.11.2021. There were a total of 23 elected Panchayat Samiti
members. In the elections held, the respondent nos.8 and 9 were
elected as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti.
Subsequently, the no-confidence motion was passed against the
then Pramukh Laxmi Prasad Yadav on 15.1.2024 and later the
Up-Pramukh was also removed.
21. The petitioner was elected as the Pramukh of
Panchayat Samiti, Riga on 15.2.2024.
22. On 16.2.2026, a requisition (Annexure-R/1) for
holding a special meeting to consider the of no-confidence
motion against the Pramukh/petitioner was presented by 15
members of the Panchayat Samiti to the Pramukh/petitioner. No
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
14/32
receiving having been given by the Pramukh/petitioner to the
requisitionists, the requisitionists served a copy of the same on
the respondent no.5 on 16.2.2026 itself.
23. It is not in dispute that on 16.2.2026, a copy of the
requisition for no-confidence motion was sent by the respondent
no.5 to the Pramukh. Thereafter on 7.3.2026, the respondent
no.5 scheduled the special meeting for considering the no-
confidence motion for 17.3.2026 at 11.30 a.m. wherein out of
total of 23 members, 17 members participated and 16 votes
were cast in favour of the no-confidence motion leading to
removal of the Pramukh/petitioner.
24. It was contended by learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner that no requisition for holding
special meeting was presented to the Pramukh as required under
section 44(3)(i) of the Act. Relevant portion of section 44(3)(i)
of the Act is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-
“44. Resignation and Removal of
Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. –
… … … … … … … … … …
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 CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
15/32
specially 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. ……...”
25. While it is the case of the petitioner that no
requisition was ever presented by the requisitionists to the
petitioner, the contention is seriously contested by the
requisitionists (respondent nos.8 to 22) in reference to the
statement made in paragraph no.4 of the counter affidavit,
relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below :-
“4. …... But when the Petitioner
failed to discharge the said duties diligently, 15
elected members of Panchayat Samiti
(Respondents no. 8-22) personally presented the
requisition dated 16.02.2026, after two years of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
16/32
her being elected as Pramukh, to the Petitioner
for calling a special meeting of no confidence
against her. But the Petitioner did not issue any
receiving upon the said requisition dated
16.02.2026, then the Respondents no. 8-22 sent
the same in the office of the Respondent No.5
(The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive
Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Riga, Sitamarhi,
Bihar) upon which the Respondent no. 5 and its
staff issued receiving upon the said requisition.
A true copy of requisition
dated 16.02.2026 is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE R-1.”
26. Further from the contents of the writ application,
the petitioner accepts receiving the requisition for no-confidence
from the office of the respondent no.5 through a staff namely
Sanjay. The petitioner also admits receiving the requisition sent
to her on whatsapp by the respondent no.5 on 18.2.2026. The
petitioner states that immediately on receipt of the requisition,
which appeared to her to be suspicious for no good reason, she
wrote a letter to the respondent no.5 asking him to take
guidelines from the superior authorities on the issues raised in
the said letter dated 21.2.2026 (Annexure-P/7).
27. Here itself it would be relevant to mention that it
is the categorical case of the respondent no.5 that on having
received the requisition, the respondent no.5 sent the same to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
17/32
Pramukh/petitioner, however the Pramukh/petitioner refused to
give a receiving of the same in the peon book, relevant copy of
which has been brought on record as Annexure-R3/A. No
receiving having been given, the respondent no.5 sent a copy of
the requisition to the Pramukh on her whatsapp number. The
petitioner acknowledges the receipt of the requisition for no-
confidence motion from the respondent no.5, refutes the
contention that she refused to give an acknowledgment in the
peon book but also accepts receipt of the copy of the requisition
from the respondent no.5 on her whatsapp number.
28. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts
stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion that the original
requisition signed by 15 requisitionists and which has been
brought on record as Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit of
respondent nos.8 to 22 addressed to the Pramukh was presented
to her and on her refusing to give a receipt was served on the
respondent no.5 and his staff who then got the same delivered to
the Pramukh/petitioner which is accepted by the petitioner.
Even on the staff of respondent no.5 serving the requisition of
no-confidence on the petitioner, she once again avoided giving
her receiving in the peon book. Thus taking into consideration
the contention of respondent nos.8 to 22 in paragraph no.4 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
18/32
the counter affidavit and the material on record discussed it is a
clear case where the Pramukh/petitioner was avoiding the
service of requisition of no-confidence upon her.
29. With respect to the contention of learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner that the requisition was not presented
to the Pramukh in violation of section 44(3) of the Act, it may
further be observed that section 44(3) of the Act, relevant
portion of which is quoted herein above mentions that
‘requisition for such a special meeting shall be presented to the
Pramukh in writing’ and does not mention about the same being
presented personally. The petitioner accepts that she was served
with a requisition through the staff of respondent no.5 and also
received a copy of the same from respondent no.5 on her
whatsapp number.
30. Having received the requisition, the petitioner
should have proceeded to take steps as per the provisions of
section 44(3) of the Act but chose to write a letter dated
21.2.2026 to the respondent no.5 asking him to take guidelines
from the superior authorities. Even in the said letter, she accepts
receiving the requisition of no-confidence against her on
17.2.2026 from the Office of the respondent no.5.
31. This Court in the case of Ramendra Ram (supra)
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
19/32
held 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 all 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
20/32
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.”
32. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Priyanka Devi (supra) 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
21/32
sending the requisition itself. Such is 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
22/32
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
23/32
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
24/32
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.”
33. The next contention by learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner is that a motion of no-confidence
already having been brought against the Office of the Pramukh
i.e. the petitioner’s predecessor who was removed in the special
meeting held on 15.1.2024, a second motion of no-confidence
could not be brought in view of section 44(3)(ii) of the Act.
34. A bare reading of the provisions contained in
section 44(3)(ii) of the Act would show that the provisions
contained therein stating that the no-confidence motion may be
brought only once in the whole tenure of Pramukh does not
imply to the Office of the Pramukh but to the individual holding
the said Office. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is not the
second motion of no-confidence but only the first motion of no-
confidence brought against her. In the opinion of the Court, this
contention on behalf of the petitioner has no merits to stand.
35. It was next contended by learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner that the charges mentioned in the notice dated
7.3.2026 were vague, false and superfluous and it did not
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
25/32
mention that the special meeting was fixed by the Up-Pramukh
or 1/3rd of the total number of directly elected members.
36. So far as the charges being vague, false and
superfluous are concerned it may be observed here that the
charges against the Pramukh/petitioner were discussed in the
special meeting held on 17.3.2026 and the no-confidence
motion against the petitioner was passed by 16 out of the 17
elected members who participated in the meeting. Further there
being a total of 23 members, the resolution of no confidence has
been passed by a majority of the total elected Panchayat Samiti
members, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise all
these issues after having been voted out, having lost the
confidence of the house.
37. This Court in the case of Ramendra Ram (supra)
further held as follows :-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
26/32
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 motion, 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.”
38. The next contention of learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner was that he having sought guidelines from the
Department, he received a copy of the letter dated 26.2.2026
written by the Panchayati Raj Department to the District
Magistrate, Nalanda, from respondent no.5 on 6.3.2026 but the
same also did not deal with the petitioner’s Panchayat Samiti. It
may be observed here that having received the requisition for
no-confidence, the petitioner was required to act in accordance
with the provisions contained in section 44 of the Act and fix a
date for special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion
moved against him. He could not be permitted to delay the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
27/32
consideration of the no-confidence and stall the holding of the
special meeting on the ground that he had sought for guidelines
from the Department.
39. Even as per the petitioner’s case, having received
a copy of the requisition on 16.2.2026, as per section 44(3) of
the Act, he was required to convene a meeting on a date falling
within 15 days of such requisition i.e. on or before 3.3.2026.
Not having done so, 14 of the elected Panchayat Samiti
members wrote a letter dated 6.3.2026 to the respondent no.5
that in exercise of the powers as provided under section 44(3) of
the Act they had fixed the date of 17.3.2026 for convening a
special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against
the Pramukh and that the respondent no.5 should give
information with respect to the same to all members. It is
pursuant thereto that the respondent no.5 came out with the
notice contained in Annexure-P/10 to the application addressed
to the Pramukh/petitioner as also the members of the Panchayat
Samiti and the very start of the notice states that ‘as directed
(nirdeshanusar) the respondent no.5 is informing the members
about the meeting’. The Court finds no error in the procedure
adopted by the requisitionists or the respondent no.5.
40. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
28/32
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, the
judgment in the case of Sheikh Hassmuddin (supra) is
distinguishable from the instant case on facts. In the said case,
the consistent case of the appellants therein was that the notice
of no-confidence motion was not served upon the second
appellant at all and the entire record was silent as to how the
respondents had served the notice of no-confidence motion on
him. So far as the instant case is concerned, besides there being
a categorical assertion in the counter affidavit of the respondents
that on presentation of the requisition for calling a special
meeting to consider the no-confidence motion, the petitioner did
not issue any receiving, the same was served on the respondent
no.5 who thereafter got the same served on the
Pramukh/petitioner. In the instant case, the Pramukh/petitioner
accepts service of the requisition from the Office of the
respondent no.5 on 16.2.2026 through staff and on 18.2.2026 on
her whatsapp number and also states that she wrote to the
respondent no.5 on 21.2.2026 to take guidelines from the
superior authorities to enable the petitioner to take further steps
in the matter.
41. The facts of the judgment in the case Komal Anita
Singh (supra) relied upon by learned Senior counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
29/32
petitioner is also distinguishable in so far as in the said case the
requisitionists had neither made any attempt to serve the
requisition to the Pramukh either at her office or residence and
mere knowledge of the requisition by the Pramukh could not be
treated as service upon her. As stated above, it is a categorical
case of respondent nos.8 to 22 that the requisition was presented
to the petitioner who refused to give the receiving for the same,
however sending of the requisition by the respondent no.5 on
both 16.2.2026 and 18.2.2026 is accepted by the petitioner
herself in paragraph nos.13 and 14 of the writ application.
42. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner next relied upon the judgment in the case of Sita Devi
(supra) wherein the Court had asked the respondents in the said
case to demonstrate from the pleadings available on record that
they have either made a statement that the petitioner was
avoiding service of requisition or that a copy of the requisition
was sent to the petitioner. Without repeating the facts of the case
stated herein above, reference may be made to paragraph no.4 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.8 to 22.
43. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the
petitioner on the judgment in the case Arti Kumari (supra) to
submit that a requisition which though addressed to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
30/32
Pramukh but if routed through the Executive Officer-cum-
Block Development Office to be presented to the Pramukh, the
same has been held to be an illegal procedure adopted by the
requisitionists. At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that
so far as the facts of the instant case is concerned it is the
categorical case of the requisitionists respondent nos.8 to 22 that
the requisition which is addressed to the Pramukh was presented
to the Pramukh on 16.2.2026 who refused to give a receiving
and only thereafter a copy of the same was served on the
respondent no.5. Thus in the opinion of the Court this judgment
is of no assistance to the petitioner.
44. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the
case of J. Jayalalithaa (supra) to contend that when the statute
provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow it
and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same.
45. As already discussed herein above, the procedure
as laid down in section 44(3) of the Act mentions about the
requisition for a special meeting to consider the no-confidence
motion to be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to
the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti. In the instant
case, the same was done and only on the petitioner/Pramukh to
whom the requisition for no-confidence motion was presented
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
31/32
refusing to give a receiving, as provided in section 44(3) itself
that a copy of the same was given to the Executive Officer. In
the procedure adopted by the requisitionists and/or the
respondent no.5, the Court finds no violation or disregard of the
provisions contained in section 44(3) of the Act and the instant
judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner.
46. It may further be observed here that on receipt of
the requisition for no-confidence on 16.2.2026 from the staff of
the Office of the respondent no.5 as also on receipt of a copy of
the requisition on 18.2.2026 from the respondent no.5 on
whatsapp, no objection was raised by the petitioner/Pramukh
before any authority that in violation of the section 44(3) of the
Act the requisitionists members of the Panchayat Samiti had not
presented the requisition to the Pramukh. The petitioner took
steps seeking guidelines from the higher authorities by writing
the letter dated 21.2.2026 to the respondent no.5 on the grounds
that he felt difficulty. The grounds were (i) whether the no-
confidence motion moved against the petitioner would be
treated to be first or second, (ii) there has been stay on all
second no-confidence motion till further orders as per letter
dated 23.1.2025 of the Panchayati Raj Department and (iii) as
per section 44(2) of the Act only one no-confidence can be
Patna High Court CWJC No.4948 of 2026 dt.24-06-2026
32/32
brought in the entire tenure of the Pramukh. Thus even from the
contents of the letter dated 21.2.2026, there was no issue of the
requisition for fixing a special meeting to consider the no-
confidence motion against the petitioner not being ‘personally
presented’ to the petitioner.
47. In any case of the matter, a bare reading of section
44(3) of the Act together with the judgments cited herein above,
in the opinion of the Court, there is no requirement of personal
presentation of the requisition to the Pramukh/petitioner.
48. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Court finds no merit in the writ application.
49. The interim order granted in favour of the
petitioner stands vacated.
50. The writ application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/
avinash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 14.05.2026
Uploading Date 24.06.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.