Patna High CourtCWJC/1144/2016dismissed

Shyam Sunder Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-21Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1144 of 2016 ====================================================== Shyam Sunder Singh Son of late Basudeo Singh Resident of Village and Po. Barkagaon, P.s Karja, Block- Marwan, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department , Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur,District Muzaffarpur.

4. The Block Development Officer, Marwan, District Muzaffarpur.,

5. The State Election Commission(Panchayat) ,Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna Through the Secretary.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. SBK Manglam, Adv. Ms. Anita Kumari, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.K. Ambastha, GP-14 For the State E.C. : Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 21-01-2016 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State Election Commission. Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State Election Commission informs that this is a second writ petition by the petitioner to pray for delimitation of area of Gram Panchayat Raj, Barkagaon North and Barkagaon South in the district of Muzzafarpur under the provisions of Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and for creation of a new Gram

Patna High Court CWJC No.1144 of 2016 (2) dt.21-01-2016 Panchayat area as per the population. It is submitted that raising identical issue this petitioner had moved in CWJC No. 101 of 2016 and which was disposed of vide order passed on 11.1.2016 by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy departmentally.

It is informed by Mr. Srivastava that although the writ petition was filed after three days of the disposal of the previous writ petition but the fact has been suppressed as there is no statement made by the petitioner as regarding the previous round of litigation and the order passed thereon.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Jyoti Saran, J) deepika/- U