Birendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3656 of 2024 ====================================================== Birendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Kameshwar Singh, resident of VillageMaheshwara, P.S.-Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur and at present resident of Village-Maheshwara, near Hanumanmandir, Phakirna, P.S. Gaighat, DistrictDarbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

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

3.

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

4.

The S.D.O. East, Muzaffarpur.

5.

The District Panchayati Raj Officer, District-Muzaffarpur. 6.

The Block Development Officer, Block-Gaighat, Muzaffarpur. 7.

The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Block and P.S.-Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur. 8.

The Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj Shivdahan, Block and P.S.- Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur.

9.

The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Shivdahan, Block and P.S.-Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 01-03-2024 The petitioner has filed the above writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation to make proper enquiry against respondent nos. 8 and 9, who are the Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Shivdahan of block & P.S.-

Patna High Court CWJC No.3656 of 2024 dt.01-03-2024 2/2 Gaighat, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. A bland allegation has been made of misappropriation of government funds in installing street lights in the Gram Panchayat. The assertion is also that Rs. 25 lakhs have been misappropriated, which amount has been specified as an interpolation in the writ petition.

2. We find that the respondent nos. 8 and 9 though have been alleged with misappropriation have not been impleaded in their personal capacity. We also find that there is absolutely no substantiation of the allegation raised and merely based on a representation and a price list of LED lights, the Public Interest Litigation has been filed for a rowing inquiry; which we discern to be either in the interest of publicity or for enmity with the respondent nos. 8 and 9.

3. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition and dismiss the same.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) aditya/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 06.03.2024.

Transmission Date