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 11/39 interfering 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 13/39 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. 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 19/39 its 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 23/39 the 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 32/39 expression 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 34/39 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 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 35/39 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 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