Pappu Rai @ Pappu Patel v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2749 of 2023 ====================================================== Pappu Rai @ Pappu Patel Son of Sri Rajendra Ray, Resident of Village - Kathaur, P.S. - Parsauni, District - Sitamarhi (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

3.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi. 4.

The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sitamarhi. 5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Belsand (Sitamarhi). 6.

The Block Development Officer, Parsauni (Sitamarhi). 7.

The MANREGA, Programme Officer, Parsauni,(Sitamarhi). 8.

The Junior Engineer, MANREGA, Block - Parsauni(Sitamarhi). 9.

The Panchayat Technical Assistant, Parsauni (Sitamarhi). 10.

The Panchayat Rojgar Sewak, Kathaur, Block - Parsauni (Sitamarhi). 11.

Dinesh Prasad Yadav, the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Kathaur, P.S. - Parsauni, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tejendra Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ajay,GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD) Date : 24-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The writ application has been filed alleging irregularity in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MANEREGA) Scheme in its implementation and resultant

Patna High Court CWJC No.2749 of 2023 dt.24-04-2023 2/2 misappropriation of public money by the Mukhiya i.e., Respondent No.11. Under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for brevity, Act of 2006) there is adequate remedy for grievances against the Mukhiya, including removal of Mukhiya, if the circumstances so warrant.

Based on some unsubstantiated allegations, the petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass the procedure prescribed for removing an alleged representative by resorting to Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Leaving open the petitioner's remedy(s) under the Act of 2006, or otherwise; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's allegation, the writ application is dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 03-05-2023 Transmission Date