IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3710 of 2026 ======================================================

Smt. Lalita Kumari ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Thakur, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC-26 Mr. Santosh Kr. Mishra, AC to SC-26 For the State Election Commission : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

2 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Though the matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders (On Office Notes)’, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed the instant application praying for grant of interim stay in view of the urgency of the matter.

3. So far as the defects pointed out in the stamp report are concerned, let the same be removed within a period of three weeks.

4. The instant application has been filed praying for quashing the Letter no.65 dated 6.3.2026 issued by the Up-Pramukh, Block- Ghoswari, District- Patna whereby the Up-Pramukh has fixed the date of 16.3.2026 for considering the no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner/Pramukh.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the members of Panchayat Samiti on 27.2.2026 moved a petition of no-confidence against the petitioner/Pramukh by addressing the same to the petitioner. The same was received by the Executive Officer on 27.2.2026 and forwarded to the petitioner/Pramukh vide Letter no.155 dated

28.2.2026 (Annexure-P/5).

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, it was the Pramukh who was to convene such a meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition and only on the Pramukh failing to call such a meeting that the Up-Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members could have fixed a date for such a meeting. Without waiting for the statutory period of 15 days to expire on the requisition moved and received by the Petitioner/Pramukh on 28.2.2026, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order contained in Letter no.65 dated 6.3.2026 (Annexure-P/1), the Up-Pramukh on 6.3.2026 itself fixed the date of the meeting with respect to the no-confidence motion on

16.3.2026.

7. In the opinion of the Court, prima facie, this is in clear violation of the provisions as contained in section 44(3) of the Act. As such, the operation of the order contained in Letter no.65 dated 6.3.2026 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Up- Pramukh calling for the meeting on 16.3.2026 to consider the no-confidence motion against the petitioner is hereby stayed till further orders. No meeting shall be convened as a result of the said letter.

8. Issue notice to respondent nos.7 to 13 through both ordinary process as well as registered post with A/D for which requisites shall be filed by the petitioner within a period of one week.

9. Respondents to file their counter affidavit in the case within a period of four weeks.

10. Put up this case on 20.4.2026 in the top 20 cases.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

avinash/-

U