REQUISITION FOR NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST PRAMUKH NEED NOT BE SERVED PERSONALLY IF SERVICE IS DELIBERATELY EVADED

The petitioner, Janki Devi, was elected as Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Harsiddhi, on 13.03.2024

On 01.04.2026, 17 out of 26 members signed a requisition for a "No-Confidence Motion" alleging various irregularities

The requisitionists attempted to present the notice to the petitioner at her office and residence, but she was unavailable or refused to meet them

The Executive Officer then attempted service through a peon on multiple dates, eventually pasting the notice on her gate

When the petitioner failed to call a meeting, the requisitionists fixed 29.04.2026 as the meeting date

The motion was passed with 18 votes in favor out of 20 members present

The petitioner challenged the notice, the meeting, and the subsequent removal on grounds of forged signatures, vague charges, and improper service

1. Whether the requisition for the No-Confidence Motion was validly "presented" to the Pramukh under Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, despite her refusal to accept personal service

2. Whether the special meeting was barred by the time-limitations contained in Section 44(3)(iii) of the Act

3. Whether the charges levelled in the requisition were sufficiently specific to sustain the motion

Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which governs the resignation and removal of a Pramukh through a No-Confidence Motion

The principle that "presentation" of a requisition does not strictly require personal delivery if the official avoids service, as established in Ramendra Ram v. The State of Bihar

The doctrine from Priyanka Devi v. The State of Bihar, holding that procedural technicalities cannot be used to frustrate democratic processes or allow an official who has lost the confidence of the house to remain in power

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of forged signatures, noting that no requisitionists appeared to support such a claim

Regarding service, the Court found that the requisitionists and the Executive Officer made exhaustive efforts to serve the petitioner between 01.04.2026 and 04.04.2026, and her refusal justified service by pasting (substitution)

Applying Ramendra Ram, the Court reasoned that the legislative intent of Section 44 is that the requisition must "reach" the Pramukh, and the mode becomes irrelevant if receipt is intentionally avoided

The Court distinguished Sindhu Devi by noting that the charges here (arbitrariness, equitable fund distribution, etc.) were specific enough to apprise the petitioner of the grounds for the motion

Additionally, since the petitioner’s five-year term (ending late 2026) was not at its final stage as per Section 44(3)(iii), the timing of the motion was held legal

It ruled that a Pramukh cannot defeat a democratic mandate by avoiding personal service of a requisition.

The Court found no illegality in the requisition dated 01.04.2026, the Executive Officer’s notice dated 20.04.2026, or the proceedings dated 29.04.2026.

Consequently, the writ application was dismissed, upholding the petitioner’s removal by the majority vote of 18 out of 26 members.