Dismissed

Sunita Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Jun 2013CWJC/19089/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition against the District Magistrate's order, holding that local administration is best suited to verify the grounds regarding the Panchayat Sarpanch's conduct and non-implementation of directives.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed with direction to implement impugned order within three months and recover costs from responsible persons.

Sunita Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19089 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== 1. Sunita Devi W/O Bines Prasad Resident Of Village - Saren Pashchimi , P.S.- Makhdumpur , District -Jehanabad . At Present Mukhiya Gram Panchyat Pashchimi Saren , Block - Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad .

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate ,Jehanabad 3. Deputy Development Commissioner , Jehanabad 4. Additional Collector , Jehanabad 5. Anchal Adhikari , Makhdumpur , District- Jehanabad 6. Block Development Officer , Makhdumpur , District- Jehanabad

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s

¶7

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh Ga8

¶8

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER ***************

¶9

05. 20.06.2013 After having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court comes to a considered opinion that this is a matter which is best dealt with by the local administration. There is no occasion for this Court to sit in appeal over a decision taken after due verification of the actual state of affairs on the ground in relation to the conduct of the Mukhiya in creating Panchayat Bhawan on a land which is used for irrigation purposes by the villagers.

¶10

The illegality of such action of the Mukhiya and her complicity is reflected in the impugned order as duly recorded by the District Magistrate, which is a detailed and considered decision.

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.19089 of 2011 (5) dt.20-06-2013 2/2

¶12

The District Magistrate would be well obliged to see that his direction issued in this regard on 07.10.2011 is now carried out and responsibility fixed on one and all, including petitioner, for the reason that elected representatives or a government servants are not law by themselves but are equally amenable to law like any other citizen. Their duty is enhanced by the fact that as an elected representative they have an additional responsibility to ensure that public money is not squandered away at the whims and caprice of Mukhiya or all such persons working in connivance with the Mukhiya.

¶13

The Writ application is dismissed with a direction that the impugned order, contained in Annexure-9 will be implemented and enforced, preferably within a period of three months. All costs for construction and may be demolition, may be recovered from the persons so responsible.

¶14

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

¶15

SKM/-

Sunita Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachindra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Hari Giri Vs Most. Sushila KUWARand Ors.

Suresh Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Smt.Shabnam Das Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

Vinay Kumar Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Madhusudan Prasad Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.