Shobha Rani v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19485 of 2016 =========================================================== Shobha Rani, W/o Bijay Yadav, Resident of Village-Laxmipur. Rajaur, P.S.- Garhpura, District-Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bakhari, District- Begusarai

5. The Block Development Officer, Garhpura, District- Begusarai

6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dunhi, Block, Garhpura

7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dunhi Block, Garhpura, DistrictBegusarai .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, A.A.G. 8 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 01-05-2017 Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition filed pro bono is with regard to misuse and embezzlement of public fund in the distribution of Old Aged Social Security Pension and Indira Awas Scheme in Dunhi Gram Panchayat, Block Garhpura, DistrictBegusarai.

2. Even though various allegations are made with regard to the matter, we find that the petitioner has already represented before the District Magistrate, Begusarai (Respondent No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19485 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017 2/2

3) in the matter and it is the grievance of the petitioner that the said authority is not taking any action.

3. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without entering into the controversy on merit and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegation made by the petitioner, Respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Begusarai is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and if found correct, to proceed to take action in accordance with law. Needless to emphasize that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made and it is for Respondent No. 3 to take action in the matter after following the due process of law and hearing all concerned in the matter. In case any adverse action is to be taken, we expect the District Magistrate to initiate action within a period of six months and conclude it within a reasonable period.

4. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 02.05.2017 Transmission Date