IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1723 of 2010
1. MAHESH RAM S/O RAMESHWAR RAM R/O VILL.- MODANGANJ, P.S.- GHOSHI, DISTT.-
JEHANABAD, AT PRESENT ELECTED MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI, MODANGANJ, DISTT.-
JEHANABAD
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD
3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA
PARISHAD, JEHANABAD
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MODANGANJ BLOCK, DISTT.- JEHANABAD
5. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER-CUM-AGENCY, MODANGANJ BLOCK, DISTT.- JEHANABAD
6. RAJIV SHARMA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER PRAMUKH, PANCHAYAT SAMITI-
MODANGANJ, DISTT.- JEHANABAD
7. SUNIL KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER ASSISTANT- MODANGANJ BLOCK,
DISTT.- JEHANABAD
Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
-----------
3/ 15/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
the State and respondent Nos.6 and 7.
While the petitioner is stated to be an
elected member of the Panchayat Samiti, Modanganj,
District- Jehanabad, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are
stated to be the Pramukh and the Assistant. The
controversy relates to what the petitioner alleges an
illegal construction of a building for medical
treatment of animals at village-Charui, Block-
Modanganj, District- Jehanabad. It is not in
controversy that during the pendency of the writ
application the construction has been completed in
March, 2010 itself. While the petitioner alleges that
the construction has been made at the present
location without any resolution of the Panchayat
Samiti, the State Authorities and private
respondents 6 and 7 assert that the construction
has been located at a place approved by the
2
Panchayat Samiti.
Arguments, counter arguments, allegations
and counter allegations have been made with regard
to what may have been considered by the Panchayat
Samiti, in what manner it was considered by the
Panchayat Samiti and to what extent it may have
been considered by the Panchayat Samiti. At the
fulcrum of the entire controversy are the decisions of
the Panchayat Samiti which is best known to the
members of the Panchayat Samiti itself.
The Panchayat system, grassroots
democracy, is a mandate of the Constitution. The
Court need not go into that aspect further except to
hold that grassroots democracy has to be allowed to
function with full force and effect and shall not be
interfered with by this Court lightly.
Let the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Jehanabad ensure that the aspect of the
construction of the building for medical treatment of
animals as discussed in the present order is placed
before the Panchayat Samiti which shall examine for
itself whether it had given any approval. If it had, for
what location. It shall be the discretion of the
Panchayat Samiti to decide/ratify/regularise what
has to be done with the construction made, if it has
3
been made without its resolution or at a place
contrary to its resolution. The Court expresses no
opinion on the merits of the construction made
which naturally has to be left to the best wisdom of
the members of the Panchayat Samiti.
The writ application is disposed in the
aforesaid terms to be complied with within a
maximum period of one month from the date of
constitution of the new Panchayat Samiti after the
present Panchayat Elections are over.
The writ application stands disposed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)