Disposed

Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC2 Dec 2014CWJC/2825/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a District Magistrate's recommendation to initiate proceedings under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Court held it was merely a recommendation not requiring interference at this stage, allowing the petitioner to respond later during the actual proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as the impugned communication is merely a recommendation.

Lalita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2825 of 2014

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Lalita Devi wife of Shiv Kumar Paswan, resident of Village- Sakri Chowki, P.S./Distt.- Arwal

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna

¶8

1. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Assistant Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna

¶10

The District Magistrate, Arwal

¶11

The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Arwal

¶12

The D.D.C.-cum-Executive Officer, Nagar Parisad, Arwal

¶13

The Assistant Project Officer, District Rural Development Authority, Arwal

¶14

The Executive Engineer, District Rural Development Authority, Arwal 9. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Arwal Block, Distt.- Arwal

¶15

.... .... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jawahar Pd. Karn, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 02-12-2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are present.

¶18

The petitioner has questioned the communication of the District Magistrate, Arwal bearing Memo No. 567 dated 09.12.2013 whereby he has recommended proceedings against the petitioner under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The recommendation is present at Annexure-12.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to question the recommendation inter alia on grounds that it is founded on

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.2825 of 2014 (2) dt.02-12-2014

¶21

¶22

maliciously motivated complaints.

¶23

Be that as it may, considering that communication of the District Magistrate impugned at Annexure-12 is a mere recommendation, it does not call for any interference at this stage. In case the Principal Secretary of department decides to proceed on the recommendation, the petitioner would have his right to respond to the charges set out against him and raise all issues as raised herein during the course of the proceedings.

¶24

With the observations aforementioned, writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶26

S.Sb/-

¶27

Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baidyanath Thakur Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/s Jai Maa Kali Timber and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mahendra Narayan Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Prabhat Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mohan Saw Vs The Bihar State Power holding Company Ltd.