Case Background
The petitioner is an elected member of the Zila Parishad, Patna. Respondent no.8 is the present Chairperson (Adhyaksha) of the same Zila Parishad.
Earlier, regular Zila Parishad bodies were elected for five years, and the last such election for Patna Zila Parishad was in 2016. That term ended in 2021, and the Zila Parishad stood dissolved.
Due to the impact of Covid-19, Panchayat elections could not be held in time. To run day-to-day work during this gap, the State issued notification no. 2757 dated 09.06.2021 under Sections 14(5), 39(5), 66(5) and 92(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Under this notification, “Advisory Committees” were formed for local bodies. Respondent no.8, who had been Chairperson of the Zila Parishad till its dissolution, was made Chairperson of the Advisory Committee for Zila Parishad, Patna.
On 19.08.2021, by memo no. 4695 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, respondent no.8 was removed from the post of Chairperson of this Advisory Committee for the rest of its tenure. The order recorded that she had failed to convene meetings of the Advisory Committee as required under the Act.
Subsequently, a “No Confidence Motion” was passed against the then Chairperson of the newly elected Zila Parishad, Patna. The seat of Chairperson fell vacant. On the directions of the State Election Commission, Bihar (memos dated 03.06.2024 and 19.06.2024), an election to fill this vacancy was held on 26.06.2024.
In this election, both the petitioner and respondent no.8 contested for the post of Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Patna. Out of 39 Zila Parishad members present, respondent no.8 secured 33 votes, while the petitioner got 5 votes. Respondent no.8 was declared elected and took oath the same day, formalised by memo no. 2261 dated 26.06.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Patna.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, filing CWJC No.10527 of 2024.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner challenged mainly two things: first, the memo no. 2261 dated 26.06.2024 by which respondent no.8 was sworn in as Chairperson; and second, the failure of the authorities to treat respondent no.8 as disqualified under Section 70(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Relief was also sought for a direction to act in accordance with memo no. 4695 dated 19.08.2021 and to take action against respondent no.8 under Section 70(5), including restraining her from dealing with financial matters.
The petitioner’s argument, presented by senior counsel, rested on one key claim: that memo no. 4695 dated 19.08.2021 removed respondent no.8 “from the post of Chairperson” on the ground of misconduct and, therefore, Section 70(5) of the Act automatically barred her from holding any Panchayat body office for five years from 19.08.2021.
Section 70(5) provides that a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson removed on grounds of misconduct or abuse of power shall not be eligible to contest any election to any Panchayat body for a period of five years from the date of removal.
The petitioner relied on the Patna High Court judgment in Satyendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2015 (2) PLJR 676. In that case, the Court had held that once Section 70(5) applied, the disqualification to contest elections for five years was clear and binding.
On this basis, the petitioner argued that because respondent no.8 was removed in 2021, she could not legally contest the election held on 26.06.2024 and therefore her election as Chairperson was void. According to the petitioner, allowing her to continue was an abuse of law requiring immediate interference.
Respondent no.8, through her senior counsel, gave a different picture. She emphasised that the regular five-year term of the Zila Parishad had already ended in 2021. After that, she was not Chairperson of the elected Zila Parishad. She was only Chairperson of the interim Advisory Committee formed by notification no. 2757 dated 09.06.2021.
Her removal on 19.08.2021, counsel argued, was from the Advisory Committee post only, for the remainder of that committee’s tenure. It was not a removal from the elected post of Chairperson of the Zila Parishad under Section 70(5). Therefore, Section 70(5) did not apply, and no five-year bar arose.
It was also pointed out that the petitioner never challenged the removal order dated 19.08.2021 itself. That order, specifically limiting removal to the rest of the Advisory Committee’s term, had become final. Respondent no.8 had herself filed CWJC No.14924 of 2021 against that removal, but that case was disposed of as infructuous on 31.03.2022.
Respondent no.8 further submitted that after a no-confidence motion, the Zila Parishad seat for Chairperson became vacant. On the direction of the State Election Commission, a fresh election was legally held on 26.06.2024 and she won by a large majority of elected members. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the election, she should have filed an election petition before the competent Civil Court under Section 137 of the Act, not a writ petition under Article 226.
The State, through counsel for the District Magistrate, supported respondent no.8’s stand. It said the order dated 19.08.2021 clearly removed respondent no.8 only from the post of Chairperson of the Advisory Committee for the rest of that tenure. Hence, her later election as Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Patna was valid.
Justice Rajiv Roy examined memo no. 4695 dated 19.08.2021 in detail. The Hindi text of the order (reproduced in the judgment) shows that:
- Respondent no.8 was described as Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, Zila Parishad, Patna.
- The alleged default was failure to convene meetings of the Zila Parishad/Advisory Committee as required by the Act.
- She was removed “from the post of Chairperson of the Advisory Committee of Zila Parishad, Patna for the rest of her tenure” under departmental notification no. 2757 dated 09.06.2021.
On this basis, the Court found that, by the time of this removal order, the earlier elected Zila Parishad had already completed its five‑year term and stood dissolved. Respondent no.8 was no longer the elected Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Patna. She held only the interim Advisory Committee post.
The Court noted that the removal order itself was tied to notification no. 2757 dated 09.06.2021, which had constituted the Advisory Committee as a stop-gap arrangement until new elections. The removal was “for the rest of the period” of this Advisory Committee. No part of the order said she was being removed from the elected office of Chairperson of the Zila Parishad under Section 70(5).
Critically, nobody had challenged this 19.08.2021 order in a way that could change its wording. Because it clearly said removal was only for the rest of the Advisory Committee’s tenure, and this remained unchallenged, the Court treated it as final.
In that light, the Court held that Section 70(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 did not apply to respondent no.8’s case. The section deals with removal of an Adhyaksha/Up-Adhyaksha of a Panchayat body for misconduct or abuse of power and provides a five-year disqualification. Here, the Court said, respondent no.8 had been removed from an Advisory Committee, not from the elected Zila Parishad post, and the removal itself was not recorded as under Section 70(5) but under the 09.06.2021 notification.
As a result, the earlier Patna High Court ruling in Satyendra Yadav was found inapplicable. That case had involved direct removal of a Zila Parishad Adhyaksha under Section 70(5) itself, within the life of that Zila Parishad, and hence a five‑year bar clearly arose. In contrast, respondent no.8’s removal was of a different nature and source.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, (2012) 4 SCC 407, cited by respondent no.8, where “misconduct” was defined and it was held that mere technical lapses, such as not calling a meeting without causing loss or with no bad intention, may not always justify removal. However, Justice Rajiv Roy observed that, given his conclusion about the nature of the removal and the Advisory Committee notification, a deeper discussion on “misconduct” was not necessary in this case.
Finally, the Court held that the District Magistrate, respondent no.6, rightly concluded on 22.06.2024 that the objection to respondent no.8’s candidature was not acceptable because the 19.08.2021 removal was limited to the Advisory Committee for the rest of its tenure. After respondent no.8 polled the majority votes on 26.06.2024, she was correctly declared elected as Chairperson, Zila Parishad, Patna.
On these findings, the Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The election of respondent no.8 stands undisturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for local body representatives and voters in Bihar.
First, it clarifies that not every removal from a local body-related post automatically triggers a five-year ban under Section 70(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. The exact post from which a person was removed, and the legal source of that removal, are crucial.
If a person is removed from an interim or advisory post created only for a temporary period, and the order itself limits removal to “the rest of the tenure” of that interim body, this may not amount to a Section 70(5) disqualification from future elections.
Second, the judgment shows that courts will closely read the original government order of removal. If that order is not challenged in time, later attempts to treat it as something broader (for example, as a Section 70(5) removal) are unlikely to succeed.
Third, the Court notes that if someone wants to challenge the validity of an election to a panchayat or Zila Parishad post, the usual route is an election petition before the competent Civil Court under Section 137 of the Act, rather than straightaway invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
For ordinary voters and local representatives, the message is simple: before assuming that a person is barred from contesting, one must carefully read the exact language of earlier orders and understand which legal provision was actually used.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Did the prior removal of respondent no.8 by memo no. 4695 dated 19.08.2021 automatically disqualify her for five years under Section 70(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, making her 2024 election as Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Patna illegal?
Answer: No. The Court held that respondent no.8 had been removed only from the post of Chairperson of the Advisory Committee of Zila Parishad, Patna, created under notification no. 2757 dated 09.06.2021, and that removal was expressly “for the rest of the tenure” of that Advisory Committee. It was not a removal under Section 70(5) from the elected post of Chairperson of the Zila Parishad, so no five‑year disqualification applied. - Issue: Was the District Magistrate’s decision to accept respondent no.8’s candidature and to declare her elected on 26.06.2024 liable to be quashed in writ proceedings?
Answer: No. The Court held that the District Magistrate correctly treated the 19.08.2021 order as confined to the Advisory Committee and found no legal bar against respondent no.8’s candidature. Since she secured a majority of votes in a properly conducted election, the memo no. 2261 dated 26.06.2024 declaring her Chairperson did not warrant interference under Article 226.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Satyendra Yadav v. State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Jehanabad and others, 2015 (2) PLJR 676 – cited by the petitioner; held inapplicable because that case concerned direct removal of a Zila Parishad Adhyaksha under Section 70(5).
- Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 – cited by respondent no.8; Supreme Court decision explaining the meaning of “misconduct” and when failure to call meetings may justify removal.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10527 of 2024
Case Title: Rehana Parveen v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Date of Judgment: 23.09.2024
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 380
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election and swearing‑in of the Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Patna.
Key Statutory Provisions Referred: Section 70(5) and Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006; notification no. 2757 dated 09.06.2021 issued under Sections 14(5), 39(5), 66(5), 92(4) of the Act.
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Anirban Kundu, S.C.-24
- For Zila Parishad: Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur, Advocate
- For respondent no.8: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate
- For State Election Commission: Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate
Outcome: Writ petition dismissed; election of respondent no.8 as Chairperson, Zila Parishad, Patna upheld.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
