Shyamdeo Prasad @ Chandramani Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7644 of 2014 ====================================================== Shyamdeo Prasad @ Chandramani Prasad, son of Late Shiv Barat Prasad, resident of Village - Lodipur, Police Station - Khizarsarai, District - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya.

5. The District Programme Coordinator, Gaya.

6. The Director, Account Administration and Self-employment, District Rural Development Agency, Gaya.

7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimchak Bathani, Gaya.

8. The Programme Officer, Khizarsarai, Gaya.

9. Fulmati Devi, the Mukhiya, Lodipur Gram Panchayat, Block Khizarsarai, Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 18-05-2015 Heard the parties.

This application has been filed questioning the decision of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya as reflected in his order bearing Memo 270 dated 15.01.2014, whereby the work to execute the schemes has been reverted back to the Mukhiya. The order shows that consequent upon initiation of criminal case that the execution work was withdrawn from the Mukhiya to be discharged by the Programme Officer vide order bearing Memo no.2383 dated 10.11.2012 but since after his release on bail that on the request

Patna High Court CWJC No.7644 of 2014 (2) dt.18-05-2015 of Programme Officer himself made vide letter bearing no.144 dated 02.12.2013 that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya by the order impugned has reverted back the work of MANREGA to the Mukhiya.

The petitioner claims to be a Chairman of the 20-Point Programme and besides the fact that the order impugned suffers from no infirmity, in my opinion the petitioner does not even have any locus to question the decision of the State Government. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U