Shamim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.399 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13489 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Shamim S/o Abdul Gafur Resident of Village- Majhaili, P.S- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea.

2.

Lalan Kumar Sinha @ Lalan Kumar Singh S/o Late Vinod Lal Das Resident of Village- Maharajpur, P.S- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea. 3.

Nageshwar Paswan S/o Late Jageshwar Paswan Resident of Village- Harda, P.S- K. Hat, District- Purnea.

4.

Hasina Bano W/o- Md. Tafjul Resident of Village- Sheikhpura, P.S- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea.

5.

Hasina Khatoon W/o- Md. Nayeem Resident of Village- Uchitpur, P.SMuffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea. 6.

Fulwaque Khatoon W/o Majibur Rahman Resident of Village- Fasiya, P.SMuffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea. 7.

Jeevan Das S/o Late Balram Resident of Village- Maranga, P.S- Lalganj, District- Purnea.

8.

Bibi Mahtari Khatoon W/o Tanveer Alam Resident of Village- Vasantpur, P.S- Sadar, District- Purnea.

9.

Md. Asfaque Alam S/o Md. Abbas Resident of Village- Pokhariya, P.SMuffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

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

The Director Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate Purnea.

5.

The Sub- Divisional Officer Purnea District- Purnea. 6.

The Block Development Officer Purnea East -cum- Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti- Purnea East, District-Purnea. 7.

Ruchi Devi W/o not Known to the appellants 8.

Meena Devi W/o not known to the appellants 9.

Md. Khurshid Alam S/o not known to the appellants 10.

Liliya Devi W/o Shri Jitendra Mahaldar Resident of village- Virpur, P.S.- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea.

11.

Babuji Soren S/o Dena Soren Resident of Village- Rampur, P.S.- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea.

12.

Mahesh Kumar Chauhan S/o not known to the appellants 13.

Ashok Rishi S/o Late Triloki Resident of Village- Himtiyarpur, P.S.- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea.

2/4 14.

Ramchandra Chauhan S/o Shri Jabani Chouhan Resident of VillageMajhua, P.S.- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea. Respondents No. 7 to 14 are the Members of Panchayat Samiti- Purnea East through the Block Development Officer- cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti- Purnea East, P.O- Purnea, P.S.- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea.

15.

Santosh Kumar Rai S/o Shri Binod Kumar Rai Resident of VillageSimalgachhi, P.O.- Pokharia, P.S.- Muffasil Ranipatra, District- Purnea. 16.

Meena Devi W/o- Shri Shivanand Rajbanshi Resident of VillageMahendrapur, P.O.- Bhaga Bhatgawa, P.S.- Muffasil Ranipatra, DistrictPurnea. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Shri Prakash Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate Mrs. Anu Priyadarshi, Advocate For Respondent State :

Mr. Manish Kumar, A.C. to AAG-6 For Respondent Nos. 15,16:

Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 17-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. We have gone through the judgment in the case of Madhubala Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2015 (3) PLJR 491. The liberty given by the learned Single Judge already exists on record. We had noticed this in our order dated 8th May, 2019, which is reproduced hereinunder:- "We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and we find that the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding it to be covered by the judgment of the

3/4 Division Bench in the case of Sheikh Hassmuddin Vs. State of Bihar [2015 (3) PLJR 203].

What we further find from the provision of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 is that there is no bar for serving a fresh proper notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To this extent, the learned single Judge has left it open to the appellants at liberty to bring a fresh requisition in this regard. We have come across another judgment of a learned single Judge in the case of Madhubala Singh Vs. State of Bihar [2015 (3) PLJR 491], where in order to overcome this difficulty of the Pramukh either not receiving the notice or avoiding to receive the notice, a direction was issued to serve the notice under the orders of the Court.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh are virtually adopting all avoidable methods and therefore the notice cannot be thrust upon them in the absence of any other alternative procedure provided under the Act. For this purpose only, we issue notice to the respondent-petitioner Nos. 15 and 16, by both modes i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, calling upon them to answer the aforesaid proposition by the next date fixed.

4/4 Steps for service of notice be taken within a week.

List on 24th June, 2019."

3. It is in this background that we dispose of this appeal with liberty to the appellants to serve the requisition on Respondent No. 15 on 20th of July, 2019. We further direct the authorities to ensure that the law as laid down in the case of Madhubala Singh (supra) in Paragraph 5 shall be adhered to.

4. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 19.07.2019 Transmission Date