AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.07.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.695 of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners (appellants herein) came to be dismissed.
The case of the appellants, in brief, is that they were elected as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Pakaridayal Block Panchayat Samiti on 30.12.2021. A No-Confidence Motion was earlier brought against them; however, the meeting, convened on 13.01.2024, could not proceed to voting as only seven out of the fourteen elected members were present.
Thereafter, the members who had sought the no-confidence motion approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.11.2024, granting liberty to submit a fresh requisition for bringing a no-confidence motion, subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.12490 of 2024.
Pursuant thereto, a fresh requisition was submitted on 29.11.2024. The appellants objected to the said requisition. Notwithstanding the said objection, a special meeting was fixed for 04.01.2025, in which the no-confidence motion was passed by nine votes.
The appellants challenged the said proceedings by filing C.W.J.C. No.695 of 2025 and subsequently I.A. No. 01 of 2025, seeking, inter alia, quashing of the requisition and the proceedings of the special meeting dated 04.01.2025. On 21.01.2025, this Court directed that the proceedings of the second no-confidence motion be kept in abeyance till disposal of the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The appellants accordingly continued in office during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 29.07.2026. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are extracted hereinbelow:
“22.Coming to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners so far as the fixing of the date is concerned, it clearly transpires from the material on record and the minutes of the meeting dated 23.12.2024 that the Pramukh not having fixed the date of the special meeting on a requisition by 7 (more than 1/3rd) out of the 14 elected members, in the meeting held on 23.12.2024, the 7 elected members fixed the date of the meeting as 4.1.2025 and the same was communicated to the members of the Panchayat Samiti including the petitioners herein on 26.12.2024 itself.
23.The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the meeting held is that there is no mention as to when Vinod Kumar was elected to preside over the meeting. It may only be observed here that section 44(3) (vii) requires that in case of no confidence motion against both Pramukh and Up-Pramukh, the meeting shall be presided by any member elected from among the members of the Panchayat Samiti. The minutes of the meeting dated 23.12.2024 fixing the date of the special meeting on 4.1.2025 as also the minutes of the meeting dated 4.1.2025 wherein the resolution of no confidence was passed against Pramukh and Up-Pramukh were attended by 7 and 9 elected members of the Panchayat Samiti respectively and all of them have signed the proceedings. Proceedings of both meetings described Vinod Kumar as a Presiding Officer (पपठठसपन अधयक) ie the person who presided over the two meetings as required under section 44 of the Act.
24.None of the 7 members of the meeting dated 23.12.2024 or 9 members of the meeting dated 4.1.2025 have contested the position of Vinod Kumar having presided over two meetings. section 44(3)(vii) does not talk about any procedure as to in what manner the person who will preside over the meeting is to be elected, etc. and thus the Court finds no substance in the objections raised by the petitioners.
25.In the case of Bharat Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that so far as the pleadings in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit is concerned, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that documents in support of the facts pleaded have not been brought on record by the private respondents. Without going into the details and avoiding repetition of the facts as stated herein above, it may only be observed that requisition dated 29.11.2024, the postal receipt dated 29.11.2024, the minutes of the pleadings dated 23.12.2024, the communication of the date of the meeting having been fixed sent to the Executive Officer on 23.12.2024, the notices/intimations issued by the Executive Officer to the members of the Panchayat Samiti including Pramukh on 26.12.2024 and the minutes of the meeting dated 4.1.2025 have all been brought on record by either of the parties to the writ application. Thus, it cannot be said that the recitals of the writ application are without supporting documents.
26.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no illegality either in the requisitions nor in the fixing of the meeting as also the proceeding of the meeting dated 4.1.2025 wherein the no confidence motion was passed against both the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh ie the petitioners herein by a majority of total elected members ie 9 out of 14.
27.The Court finds no merit in the instant application.
28.The application is dismissed.”
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the requisition dated 29.11.2024 was not acted upon in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. It is submitted that the statutory scheme initially requires the Pramukh to fix the date of the special meeting and, upon failure of the Pramukh, enables the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti to fix such date. According to learned counsel, in the present case, the date of the meeting was fixed by Respondent No.15 alone and, therefore, the same was without authority of law.
It is further submitted that the statutory power vested in one-third of the elected members could not have been delegated to an individual member and, consequently, the subsequent communication made by Respondent No.15 to the Executive Officer could not confer legality upon the fixing of the date of the special meeting.
Learned counsel further submits that the requirement contained in Section 44(3)(vii) of the Act, relating to the Presiding Officer where the no-confidence motion is against both the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh, has also not been complied with. According to him, the proceedings dated 04.01.2025 do not disclose that Respondent No.15 was elected by the members present to preside over the meeting. It is, therefore, contended that the proceedings of the special meeting and the no-confidence motion passed therein are vitiated.
Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2026 INSC 308, to contend that the requirements prescribed under Section 44(3) are mandatory and require strict compliance.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the requisition was submitted before the Pramukh on 29.11.2024, but the same was refused to be received. Thereafter, the requisition was sent through post on 06.12.2024, which was also not accepted by the Pramukh. Since the Pramukh failed to fix the date of the special meeting, the requisite number of requisitioning members, being more than one-third of the elected members, fixed the date of the meeting as 04.01.2025 in their meeting held on 23.12.2024 and communicated the same to the Executive Officer.
It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the Executive Officer issued notice dated 26.12.2024 to the members of the Panchayat Samiti, including the Pramukh, for convening the special meeting on 04.01.2025. The meeting was accordingly convened and the no-confidence motion against both the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh was passed with all nine members present voting in its favour. Since the total number of elected members was 14, the resolution had the support of the requisite majority.
As regards the Presiding Officer, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Vinod Kumar was shown as the Presiding Officer in the proceedings dated 23.12.2024 as well as 04.01.2025 and the proceedings were duly signed by the members present. No objection was raised by any of the members participating in the meeting regarding his presiding over the proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that there has been no violation of Section 44(3)(vii) of the Act.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
The issue that arises for consideration in the present intra-court appeal is whether the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, suffer from any illegality, perversity or error of law so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
So far as the fixing of the date of the special meeting is concerned, the learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the minutes dated 23.12.2024, has found that seven out of the fourteen elected members had participated in the meeting and, upon the Pramukh having failed to fix the date, they themselves fixed 04.01.2025 as the date of the special meeting. The subsequent communication to the Executive Officer by one of the members was only consequential to the decision so taken by the requisite members and cannot be treated as an independent exercise of the statutory power.
As regards the Presiding Officer, the proceedings dated 04.01.2025 record Vinod Kumar as the Presiding Officer and bear the signatures of the members present. No objection to his presiding over the meeting has been shown to have been raised by any member present. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that Section 44(3)(vii) does not prescribe any particular form or manner in which the election of the Presiding Officer is required to be recorded.
The reliance placed by the appellants upon Rashmi Singh(supra), in fact, also does not advance their case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held therein that a no-confidence motion under Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 can succeed only when it is supported by more than half of the total number of elected members. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“12.Though this Court is seized of the interpretation of both the above-reproduced Sub-Sections, we propose, for the sake of convenience and ease of reference, to consider the correctness of the Impugned Judgment and the contentions of the Parties in the context of Section 70(4) of the Panchayat Act. As observed earlier, the two provisions in question being similarly worded, the reasoning adopted by this Court for Section 70(4) shall also apply to Section 44(3) of the Panchayat Act.
45.We, thus, find that the text of Section 70(4) is plain and clear, and it falls in line with the underlying legislative intent. Accordingly, we hold that an Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha can be removed only if the resolution of no-confidence is supported by more than half of the total number of elected members for it to pass. This interpretation is warranted not only by the expressions used in the provision but also is directed at protecting the democratic integrity of the framework of local self-governance in the State of Bihar.”
In the present case, the total number of elected members is fourteen and the resolution dated 04.01.2025 was supported by nine members. Thus, the statutory threshold laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stands satisfied.
The learned Single Judge has considered the relevant provisions of Section 44(3), the proceedings dated 23.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 and the objections raised by the appellants, and has assigned cogent reasons for dismissing the writ petition. The findings recorded are supported by the material on record and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or error of law.
We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal.
Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.