Patna High Court
Administrative and Public LawElection Law

Up-Pramukh cannot fix a no-confidence motion date before the Pramukh's statutory fifteen-day period expires.

Smt. Lalita Kumari vs The State of Bihar

Patna High CourtJUDGMENT: May 12, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Up-Pramukh cannot fix a no-confidence motion date before the Pramukh's statutory fifteen-day period expires.. Smt. Lalita Kumari vs The State of Bihar. Patna High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, serving as the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Ghoswari, was served with a requisition for a no-confidence motion by members of the Samiti on 27.02.2026

Source reference: p. 3

The Executive Officer forwarded this requisition to the petitioner on 28.02.2026

Source reference: p. 3

However, before the statutory 15-day period for the Pramukh to call a meeting had lapsed, the Up-Pramukh issued a letter on 06.03.2026 (Letter No. 65) unilaterally fixing 16.03.2026 as the date for the special meeting

Source reference: p. 3, 4
02

Issues

1. Whether the Up-Pramukh has the jurisdiction to fix the date of a no-confidence motion meeting before the expiry of the 15-day period allotted to the Pramukh under the Act

Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7-9
03

Law Applied

Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which mandates that once a requisition is presented by one-third of the elected members, the Pramukh must convene a special meeting within 15 days

Source reference: p. 3-4

the legal principle established in Munni Khatun vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2024 (4) BLJ 820 (DB)), which clarifies that the Up-Pramukh or members can only exercise the power to fix a meeting date if the Pramukh fails to do so within the prescribed statutory timeframe

Source reference: p. 4 / para. 8
04

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that under Section 44(3), the primary right and duty to schedule the special meeting rests with the Pramukh for a duration of 15 days following the requisition

Source reference: p. 4

In this case, since the petitioner received the notice on 28.02.2026, the legal window to fix the meeting extended until 15.03.2026

Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7

By issuing a notice on 06.03.2026, the Up-Pramukh "usurped" the petitioner's authority and acted in technical violation of the statutory hierarchy of power

Source reference: p. 4 / para. 9

The Court found that the Up-Pramukh’s action was premature and "in the teeth of the provisions" of the Act, rendering the meeting notice legally unsustainable

Source reference: p. 4
05

Holding

The Court allowed the writ application and quashed the Up-Pramukh’s letter dated 06.03.2026

The Court held that the fixing of the meeting by the Up-Pramukh was without jurisdiction as the petitioner's statutory time limit had not expired. Consequently, the Court directed the Pramukh (petitioner) to fix a fresh date for the no-confidence motion meeting within 15 days from the date of the judgment, as contemplated under Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006

Source reference: p. 5 / para. 10
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

BIHAR PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 20062

Patna High Court

Original Court PDF

Smt. Lalita KumarivsThe State of Bihar

Patna High Court · May 12, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment