Arati Devi @ Arti Devi vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2083 of 2026
======================================================
Arati Devi @ Arti Devi Wife of Peshkar Baitha, Resident of Village
Sarabe/Sarawe, P.S. Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Siwan, District Siwan.
5. The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, concerned Block
Panchayat Samiti, District- Siwan.
6. Raju Kumar Chaudhary, Father- Manejar Chaudhary, Village and Post-
Siyadi, P.S- Siwan, District - Siwan.
7. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, S/o- Late Nandji Chaudhary, Village and Post
Pachalakhi, P.S - Nautan, Siwan.
8. Kaushalya Devi, W/o- Parmanad Ram, Village and Post-Danauti Police
Station - Danauti, Siwan.
9. Gorakh Sah, S/o- Late Sahodar Sah, Village - Sujaw, Post - Pachalakhi P.S -
Nautan, Siwan.
10. Md. Anavrul Haq, Father- Late Samsuddin Miyan, Village Molana Pur, Post
- Mohmadpur, P.S - Mufassil, Siwan.
11. Vinod Yadav, S/o- Late Ramdhari Chaudhary, Village - Chhotpur, Post -
Jiyay P.S - Mufassil, Siwan.
12. Sakina Khatoon, W/o- Shamsad Sah, Village - Sarsa, Post - Bhanta Pokhar
P.S - Dhanauti.
13. Jitendra Yadav, S/o- Singhasan Chaudhary, Village - Gopalpur, P.O. - Chakra
P.S - Mufassil, Siwan.
14. Priti Devi, W/o- Sipahi Sah, Village and Post - Pithauri P. S - Dhanauti,
Siwan.
15. Haider Alam, S/o- Late Saheb Hussain, Village Kalinjara, P.O. - Jiyay P.S
-Mufassil, Siwan.
16. Bachiya Devi, W/o- Harilal Sah, Village - Luhasi khurd, P.O. - Khalimpur
P.S -Dhanaut, Siwan.
17. Ramashankar Sah, S/o- Late Kamal Sah, Village and Post -Bindusar, P.S
-Mufassil, Siwan.
18. Kabutari Devi, W/o- Upendra Yadav, Village - Majhawa P.O. - Sarsar, P.S -
Mufassil, Siwan.
19. Aarti Devi, W/o- Devnath Singh Chauhan, Village and Post - Bardan Gopal
P.S -Mufassil, Siwan.
20. Saroj Devi, W/o- Vijay Singh, Village - Jamsikadi Post -Chakra, P.S-
Mufassil, Siwan.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
2/15
21. Parvati Devi, W/o- Devnath Singh, Village -Nauwapali , Post - Chakra
Police Station - Mufassil, Siwan.
22. Krishnand Pandey, S/o Sri Narayan Pandey, Village and Post - Chakra Police
Station - Mufassil, Siwan.
23. Priyanka Devi, W/o- Vijay Kumar, Village and Post-Sarsar Police Station -
Mufassil, Siwan.
24. Geeta Devi, W/o- Ravindra Sah, Village - Chhakka hata, Post Pakwaliy,
25. Dharmawati Devi, W/o- Gyani Manjhi, Village -Bharthui, P.O and Police
Station -Dhanauti, Siwan.
26. Rameshwar Ram, S/o Sugriv Ram, Village - Karmali hata, P.O. - Baso Pali
Police Station - Mufassil, Siwan.
27. Satrudhan Chaurasiya, S/o- Late Harindra Chaurasiya, Village- Dharm
kariyar P.O.-Hasuwa Police Station - Dhanwati, Siwan.
28. Parvati Devi, W/o- Shambhu Ram, Village and P.O. - Nathuchhap Police
Station -Mufassil, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Wasi Mohammad, AC to SC-6
For the Pvt. Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2026
Heard Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Wasi Mohammad, learned AC to SC-6
for the State of Bihar and Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the private respondents/requisitionists.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief (s) :-
“1. a) To Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction, including a writ in the nature

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
3/15
of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned
requisition whereby vague charges have been
made against the petitioner in violation of the
mandatory provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006;
b) To Issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction, including a writ in the nature of
Mandamus, restraining the respondents from
giving effect to the impugned requisition;
c) Issue any other writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice;”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was
elected as Pramukh of Siwan Sadar Block Panchayat Samiti
on 31.1.2024.
4. The requisitionists/private respondents moved a
requisition on 2.2.2026 requesting her to convene a special
meeting under section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to consider the no
confidence motion against her on the grounds/charges
mentioned in the requisition.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the requisition
dated 2.2.2026 was given to the Pramukh after being routed
through the B.D.O-cum-Executive Officer with absolutely
vague charges. The same suffers from incurable defects.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
4/15
the entire process of moving the no confidence motion is
vitiated on the grounds of non-service of valid requisition
upon the Pramukh , malafide conduct of the Block
Development Officer, violation of the mandatory statutory
provisions and non-compliance of binding judicial directions.
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that service of requisition through a whatsapp group
wherein the husband of the Pramukh is stated to be a member
does not satisfy the mandatory legal requirements under
section 44(3) of the Act. The service through the B.D.O is
impermissible as held in judgment dated 1.4.2015 passed in
L.P.A no. 484 of 2015 (Sheikh Hassmuddin & Anr. vs. the
State of Bihar & Ors.). With respect to the Pramukh fixing the
date of meeting as 17.2.2026, it is submitted in reference to
paragraph no.9 of the petitioner’s reply to counter affidavit
that taking into consideration her simple nature and lack of
legal knowledge, she was coerced into mentioning the date
17.2.2026, which was not voluntary.
8. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for
the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Meena Yadav vs.
the State of Bihar & Ors. ; 2010 (2) PLJR 389 (DB) . It is
submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
5/15
case, the impugned requisition be set aside and the writ
application be allowed.
9. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the State of Bihar who submitted that the
requisition for convening a special meeting for passing no
confidence motion against the petitioner was received on
2.2.2026 and the respondent- B.D.O on 3.2.2026 itself
brought the same to the knowledge of the petitioner. The
petitioner on 3.2.2026 fixed the date for holding special
meeting to be on 17.2.2026 at 11 am and accordingly,
information was given to all the members by the Executive
Officer -cum- B.D.O, Siwan Sadar.
10. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar further
submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner moved this
Court for the reliefs as stated herein above and by order dated
9.2.2026, this Court was pleased to direct that till further
orders, the status quo existing as on the said date (9.2.2026)
shall be maintained.
11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State
of Bihar that in view of the order of this Court directing to
maintain status quo , no meeting took place as fixed on
17.2.2026.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
6/15
12. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the private respondents/ requisitionists
submitted that the requisitionists being dissatisfied and
aggrieved with the functioning of the Pramukh /petitioner, a
requisition dated 2.2.2026 for holding a special meeting to
consider the no confidence motion against the Pramukh was
presented by the requisitionists but the Pramukh refused to
receive the same whereupon the said requisition was served
upon the Pramukh through whatsapp message on 2.2.2026.
The requisition was also served upon the Pramukh through the
Executive Officer on 3.2.2026. The requisition clearly spell
out the charges/grounds for bringing the no confidence motion
against the Pramukh and there is no ambiguity in the same.
13. The Pramukh on 3.2.2026 herself fixed the date
for holding the special meeting to be on 17.2.2026, however
while moving this Court, suppressed this fact and got the
direction from this Court on 9.2.2026 to maintain status quo .
It was submitted that for having suppressed material fact from
this Court and having obtained the order, the writ application
is fit to be dismissed with heavy costs. Reliance has been
placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private
respondents on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
7/15
the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav vs. Karamveer
Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Ors. ; (2013) 11
SCC 531 . It is thus submitted that the writ application be
dismissed with costs.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
15. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
was elected as the Pramukh of the Siwan Sadar Block
Panchayat Samiti on 31.1.2024.
16. On 2.2.2026, a requisition was presented by the
requisitionists to the Pramukh for convening a special meeting
as per section 44(3) of the Act to consider the motion of no
confidence against the Pramukh on the ground and charges
mentioned in the requisition.
17. It may be observed here that the petitioner
moved this Court challenging the said requisition on the
grounds of the same containing vague charges and being in
violation of the provisions of the Act insofar as the same had
not been presented to the Pramukh but had been routed
through the Executive Officer-cum-B.D.O.
18. This Court heard the matter and by order dated
9.2.2026 was pleased to pass an order directing for

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
8/15
maintaining of status quo . Relevant part of the order dated
9.2.2026 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :
“6. Till further orders, the status quo
existing as of today shall be maintained”
19. Subsequent to passing of the said order, counter
affidavits came to be filed by the respondent-B.D.O as also
the private respondents.
20. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Block Development Officer, it was stated that as per section
44(3)(i) of the Act, the B.D.O immediately on 3.2.2026
brought the said requisition to the knowledge of the Pramukh
who herself fixed the date for holding special meeting to be on
17.2.2026. The relevant photocopy of the extract of the note-
sheet has been brought on record as Annexure R-3/1 to the
said counter affidavit.
21. In response to the said affidavit/statement, it is
contended by the petitioner that the B.D.O-cum Executive
Officer exerted undue pressure and the petitioner was coerced
into mentioning the date 17.2.2026. The relevant paragraph
no.9 of the petitioner’s reply is extracted herein below for
ready reference :
“9. That it is humbly submitted that
the BDO-cum-Executive Officer exerted undue

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
9/15
pressure upon the Pramukh to fix a date on the
alleged requisition and without her free will.
Taking advantage of her simple nature and lack
of legal knowledge, she was coerced into
mentioning the date 17.02.2026, which was not
voluntary but obtained under coercion and undue
influence, rendering the same void in the eyes of
law.”
22. It may be observed here that from perusal of the
relevant extract of the note-sheet, it clearly transpires that the
petitioner/ Pramukh on 3.2.2026 fixed the date of meeting on
17.2.2026. Even in her reply, she has not challenged the
genuineness of the said document. As to whether she was
coerced by the B.D.O into mentioning the date of the next
meeting as 17.2.2026 or not as mentioned in paragraph no.9
quoted herein above may be a disputed question of fact,
however there is no dispute with respect to two facts i.e.,
firstly that the petitioner on 3.2.2026 had fixed the date of the
special meeting as 17.2.2026 and secondly these facts were
suppressed in the writ application.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav ( supra ) held as follows :
“ Suppression of fact
42. While dealing with the conduct of the parties,
we may also notice the submission of the learned

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
10/15
counsel for Respondent 1 to the effect that the
petitioners are guilty of suppression of a material
fact from this Court, namely, the rejection on 2-5-
2003 of the first application for extension of time
filed by the trustees and the finality attached to it.
These facts have not been clearly disclosed to this
Court by the petitioners. It was submitted that in
view of the suppression, special leave to appeal
should not be granted to the petitioners.
43. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that no material facts have
been withheld from this Court. It was submitted
that while the order dated 2-5-2003 was
undoubtedly not filed, its existence was not
material in view of subsequent developments that
had taken place. We cannot agree.
44. It is not for a litigant to decide what
fact is material for adjudicating a case and what
is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to
disclose all the facts of a case and leave the
decision-making to the court. True, there is a
mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order
dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not
enough disclosure. The petitioners have not
clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in
which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or
that it has attained finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on
this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR
1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants
eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading
statements, otherwise leave granted to an

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
11/15
appellant may be revoked. It was observed as
follows: (AIR p. 1560, para 9)
“9. … It is of utmost importance
that in making material statements
and setting forth grounds in
applications for special leave care
must be taken not to make any
statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing
with applications for special leave,
the Court naturally takes statements
of fact and grounds of fact
contained in the petitions at their
face value and it would be unfair to
betray the confidence of the Court
by making statements which are
untrue and misleading. That is why
we have come to the conclusion that
in the present case, special leave
granted to the appellant ought to be
revoked. Accordingly, special leave
is revoked and the appeal is
dismissed. The appellant will pay
the costs of the respondent.”
46. More recently, in Ramjas
Foundation v. Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 38 :
(2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 889] the case law on the
subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant
does not come to the court with clean hands, he is
not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person
is not entitled to any relief from any judicial

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
12/15
forum. It was said: (SCC p. 51, para 21)
“21. The principle that a person who
does not come to the court with
clean hands is not entitled to be
heard on the merits of his grievance
and, in any case, such person is not
entitled to any relief is applicable
not only to the petitions filed under
Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the
Constitution but also to the cases
instituted in others courts and
judicial forums. The object
underlying the principle is that every
court is not only entitled but is duty-
bound to protect itself from
unscrupulous litigants who do not
have any respect for truth and who
try to pollute the stream of justice by
resorting to falsehood or by making
misstatement or by suppressing facts
which have a bearing on
adjudication of the issue(s) arising
in the case.”
47. A mere reference to the order dated
2-5-2003, en passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006
does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It is
not for the court to look into every word of the
pleadings, documents and annexures to fish out a
fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront and clean
with all material facts and then, on the basis of the
submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it
to the court to determine whether or not a

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
13/15
particular fact is relevant for arriving at a
decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not
done this and must suffer the consequence
thereof. ”
24. So far as the other grounds for challenge of the
requisition by the petitioner in the instant case are concerned,
the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the requisition
was routed through the Executive Officer and the charges
being vague, there was no valid requisition upon the Pramukh .
Besides the charges not being vague, this Court is of the
opinion that all these grounds are being taken by the petitioner
in hindsight. Having fixed the date of special meeting to
consider the no confidence motion moved against her, she
cannot be permitted to raise these unsubstantial grounds.
25. It may be observed here that though not
specifically pleaded, to press the allegations of the petitioner
having been coerced into mentioning the date of 17.2.2026 by
the B.D.O, it was submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that on perusal of the relevant extract of the note-
sheet, it can clearly be seen that the handwriting of the note
and the signature of the petitioner are absolutely different. It
may only be observed here that on going through the records
of the case, the Court came across a number of handwritten
letters signed by the petitioner which have been brought on

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
14/15
record as Annexures to the affidavit of the petitioner filed in
reply to the counter affidavit and more particularly running
page nos. 119 to 123 of the brief wherein also the handwriting
of the contents of the letter is absolutely different from
signature of the petitioner on each of the pages.
26. In the opinion of the Court, the requisition
having been filed by the members of the Panchayat
Samiti/requisitionists being in accordance with law, the
petitioner/ Pramukh rightly proceeded to fix the date for
holding special meeting on 17.2.2026 but thereafter, having
suppressed the fact of the date of the special meeting having
been fixed by herself got the order of status quo from this
Court.
27. The Court finds no merit in the instant
application. In view of the finding of suppression, the writ
application is fit to be dismissed with costs.
28. The writ application is dismissed with the cost
of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner
within a period of three months with the Patna High Court
Legal Services Committee.
29. The writ application having been dismissed, in
view of the fact that the requisition had been moved on

Patna High Court CWJC No.2083 of 2026 dt.15-07-2026
15/15
2.2.2026 by the private respondents, to avoid giving further
scope to the petitioner/ Pramukh from delaying the holding of
special meeting to consider the no confidence motion moved
against her, this Court fixes the date of the next meeting to be
on 30.7.2026 at 11 am for which information/notice shall be
given to all the Panchayat Samiti members by the B.D.O-cum-
Executive Officer.


(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 02.07.2026
Uploading Date 15.07.2026
Transmission Date