In Sabiya Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 7-page long judgment dated August 1, 2025 dismissed the petition. This is the 11th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice.
The Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the report dated February 1, 2025 submitted by the Block Development Officer, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai and the Circle Officer, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lakhisarai, the respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 119 dated February 1, 2025 recommending the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Plot No. 404 of Khata No. 407 situated in Village- Tumni which is 10 Kilometres away from the headquarter village of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners also prayed that the respondents be directed to produce on record the order passed by District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, the respondent No. 3 after January 10, 2025 in respect of construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura in Plot No. 604, Khata No. 460, admeasuring an area of 50 decimals. The petitioners referred to the averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter submitted that for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Gram Panchayat of the State, different guidelines was issued by the State Government from time to time. The counsel referred to the guidelines were issued and the letter dated August 30, 2022, copy of which is placed on record of the compilation. It was the grievance of the petitioners that though there was sufficient land in the plot in which the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was constructed in the year 1983, the respondent authorities had selected different land of Khata No. 460 bearing Plot No. 604 situated in Village- Tumni under Rajpur Mauza for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura, pursuant thereto Respondent No. 3 directed the Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Lakhisarai for preparation of estimate vide communication dated October 6, 2022.
It was the case of the petitioners that when the petitioners came to know about the same, representation given to the concerned respondent authority, which led to the formation of a "Three Men Committee" which submitted its report. It was pointed out from the said document that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to submit their report. It was also contended by counsel that pursuant to the direction given by Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted the report dated February 1, 2025 in which it was stated that the land in question is a proper place where Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan can be constructed.
The petitioners preferred the present petition for quashing of the said report submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It was also contended that after receipt of the report from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Respondent Nos. 3, District Magistrate, Lakhisarai had till date not taken any decision whether to construct the said Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the said place or not. But in the meantime, as per the information received by the petitioners, the concerned contractor had already started construction at the place in question.
The counsel of the petitioners urged that the aforesaid construction be stopped till the decision was taken by the District Magistrate. The Advocate General referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. It was pointed out from the said counter affidavit that in fact the decision was taken in the year 2022 to construct the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the place in question. However, thereafter, considering the objections raised by the petitioners, matter was once again examined by the concerned respondent authority. In fact, jointly spot was examined by the Circle Officer as well as Block Development Officer i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and thereafter they submitted their report on February 1, 2025. It was further submitted that as per the said report, the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan can be constructed at the place in question. He contended that it was for the concerned authority to decide where the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was to be constructed and it was not for any individual or village people to decide the same. In the present case, when there was a report submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with regard to the land in question, this Court may not entertain the present petition.
Justice Pancholi observed: "Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials placed on record, it transpires that Respondent No. 3 has considered Three Men Committee’s report. The report has been placed on record at Page-34 of the compilation. Now, pursuant to the decision taken in the said meeting, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have visited the place in question and thereafter now submitted the report on 01.02.2025. Once the concerned respondent authorities have visited the place in question and thereafter submitted the report, we are of the view that the present petition filed by the petitioners is misconceived. We are of the view that the petitioners have made very vague averments in the memo of the petition in Paragraph 17 that construction work has already been initiated by the concerned contractor. In fact, the concerned contractor was not impleaded as party respondent in the present petition. We are, therefore, of the view that if the decision is not taken by Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the report dated 01.02.2025, it is open for Respondent No. 3 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law pursuant to the communication/report dated 01.02.2025 submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to quash the report dated 01.02.2025 submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as prayed for in the present petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed."
No comments:
Post a Comment