Ruby Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7561 of 2024 ====================================================== Ruby Kumari Wife of Raj Kumar Prasad Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Choukia Resident of Village and PO Choukia PS Sirdala Distirct-Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Principal Secretary Department of Panchayati Raj Bihar Patna. 3.

Principal Secretary Department of Rural Development Bihar Patna. 4.

Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Bihar Patna. 5.

District Magistrate, Nawada.

6.

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajauli under District-Nawada. 7.

District Panchayati Raj Officer Nawada.

8.

Programme Officer Sirdala District-Nawada.

9.

Circle Officer Sirdala District-Nawada.

10.

Block Development Officer Nawada.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. P. K. Shahi, AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 10-05-2024 The writ petition is misconceived, which is evident from the nature of the prayers made. The petitioner, the Mukhiya of a Panchayat, purportedly in public interest seeks implementation of Letter No. 8468 dated 02.09.2022 by which the decision of the Government was circulated directing the entire Government officials of the District to

Patna High Court CWJC No.7561 of 2024(2) dt.10-05-2024 2/2 convene in the Village Panchayat.

2. First of all, the decision is said to have been taken by a meeting under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, which cannot be implemented by judicial orders. Then, we see that the petitioner is seeking protection of her husband, who is working as a Government School Teacher, who is also said to be making complaints against the actions of the Government officials. Definitely, this cannot be treated as a Public Interest Litigation.

3. When we expressed our mind, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought for withdrawal of the writ petition.

4. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) sharun/PKPU