Appeal by Pramukh and Up-Pramukh against directions to convene a no-confidence meeting under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. The Division Bench held the earlier meetings invalid, upheld the Single Judge's directions, and treated the 26.02.2024 motion as the first within the term; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.212 of 2024 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2432 of 2024
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 2/9
Block Panchayat Samiti, Dumariya through the Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Dumariya, P.O. and P.S. Dumariya, District-Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Subham Singh, Advocate Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bipin Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma , AAG-3 Dr. Anand Kumar, AC to AAG-3 ======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 3/9
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 10-09-2024
The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which directed the appellants; the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh , to convene a no-confidence motion to consider the requisition made by the elected members of the Panchayat and on failure, permitted the elected members, on 11.02.2024, to fix a date for the special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 4/9
of consideration of no-confidence motion. In fact, the contention of the petitioners in the writ petition was that they shifted to an unknown destination; obviously sensing the discord and to avoid service of the notice of no-confidence. The appellants approached this Court specifically claiming that the appellants had time up to 15 days from the date of receipt of the requisition, to convene a special meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion. The learned Single Judge having considered Section 157 of the Act, on 23.01.2024, the last date on which the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh should have convened a meeting, directed the District Magistrate to convene a meeting, in which the Pramukh, Up-Pramukh and the elected requisitionists were to be heard and required an order to be passed under Section 157 of the Act, regarding the validity of the special meeting convened on 24.01.2024. It was also observed that if the District Magistrate finds against the meeting convened, the decision taken at the meeting on 24.01.24 shall have no validity.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 5/9
09.02.2024 at 11:00 a.m. for holding the special meeting; while holding the earlier meeting convened to be proper. On 09.02.2024 at 11:00 a.m., the special meeting was again convened and no-confidence motion passed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 6/9
the facts of the case. Looking at the facts of the case, on the admission of the petitioners in the writ petition itself, the requisition was received by them on 08.01.2024. The appellants had time up to 23.01.2024 when a special meeting could have been convened by the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh . We once again notice that the petitioners had kept away from the locality to avoid service of the notice, as averred in the writ petition itself. Be that as it may, as of now we will go by the further admission that they received the notice on 08.01.2024. It was on 13.01.2024, that the requisitionists fixed a meeting on 24.01.2024 which was not in accordance with Section 44(3). On 24.01.2024, the no-confidence motion was considered and passed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 7/9
pursuant to the directions in the writ petition filed by the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh .
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 8/9
according to us, was justified in fixing a date for the special meeting, since the petitioners, the Pramukh and the UpPramukh, did not convene a meeting within 15 days from 08.01.2024. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge interfered with the special meeting and left the matter to be considered by the petitioners, and on failure so to do; by the requisitionists. We find absolutely no infirmity in the order passed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.212 of 2024 dt.10-09-2024 9/9
The no-confidence motion convened on 26.02.2024 considered
the motion of no-confidence, which was the first motion within
the term of the Panchayat.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 12.09.2024 Transmission Date N/A
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the no-confidence motion passed on 26.02.2024 constituted a second motion barred by Section 44(3)(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dharamsheela Kumari vs. Hemant Kumar and Ors.Referred¶6
(2021) 3 PLJR 346
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar
Palita Devi
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
Ramchandra Singh
Nitu Devi
K. Vinod Chandran
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
