Yogendra Ray Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶24

2 04-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶25

counsel for the Respondent-State.

¶26

This writ application relates to construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan and its situs .

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.12531 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 2/3

¶28

The issue relating to construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan and its citus is no longer, res integra. Vide judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 2024 , in the case of Krishna Deo Kumar v The State of Bihar & Ors., the learned Division Bench of this Court has held and observed as follows:-

¶29

“5. It is worth noting that so far the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is concerned, the same is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat and a decision as to its situs lies entirely within the domain of Panchayat concerned and the State Government has exclusive jurisdiction to take a decision in this regard. So far the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, he has already represented before the concerned authorities, including the District Magistrate, Arwal and any direction of this Court would be uncalled for, in the matter.”

¶30

In view of the above judgment, it is clear that the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan and a decision as to its situs lies entirely within the domain of Panchayat concerned and the State Government has exclusive jurisdiction to take a decision in this regard.

¶31

In such view of the matter, the present writ application is not maintainable. However, the petitioner

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.12531 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 3/3

¶33

may ventilate his grievance by filing an appropriate representation within 15 days from the date of disposal of this writ application before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur and if such a representation is filed, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, will consider the same and dispose it of on merit after hearing the petitioners.

¶34

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ application is disposed of as not maintainable with the aforesaid liberty granted.

¶35

It is expected that the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur will decide the entire matter within a period of three months from the date, the representation is filed by the petitioner.

¶36

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J.)

¶37

Jyoti Kumari/-

¶38

U

Yogendra Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shweta Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anima Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Umesh Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar Jain Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar