Abhay Kumar Roy v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.545 of 2011 =========================================================== Abhay Kumar Roy son of Sri Ram Shlok Roy, resident of village- Thanpur, P.S. Mahnar, Distt. Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Gramin Vikash Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. District Magistrate, Vaishali, At Hajipur

3. Deputy Development, Commissioner, Vaishali At Hajipur

4. Block Development, Officer, Mahnar, Distt. Vaishali

5. Lady Extension Officer, Mahnar, Distt. Vaishali

6. Santosh Manav Jagrit Uthan Sansthan Trough Sedretary Ram Dayal Pandit Sri Ramashrya Pandit Lodipur Mahnar, Block Distt. Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh Mr. Bhola Bhai Desai For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.C. to GP-28 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-05-2015 Heard the parties.

The matter at issue is the authorisation of the respondent no.6 to form Self-help groups in different Gram Panchayats of Mahnar Block in the district of Vaishali under Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojna started by the Government of India w.e.f. 01.04.1999.

From the materials available on the record this Court finds that the petitioner, being a N.G.O., was authorized to form Self-help groups for six Gram Panchayats of Mahnar Block for the period from 2004-2007. In view of poor performance of the petitioner, the period was not extended.

Subsequently, after the order as contained in Annexure-6 the respondent no.6 was authorized to constitute Self-help Group for all the gram panchayats of Mahanar Block in the district of Vaishali for the period from 2007 to 2010. The grievance of the petitioner is

Patna High Court CWJC No.545 of 2011 dt.06-05-2015 2/2 that unless and until the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent State was cancelled, the respondent no. 6 could not have been appointed under the aforesaid scheme.

The matter has been contested by the respondents by filing a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 5 wherein it is stated that the period of engagement of the respondent no.6 was from 2007 to 2010. The aforesaid counter-affidavit was filed way back on 15.03.2011 and a copy of which was served upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, yet the facts stated therein have not been controverted by the writ petitioner. In the factual matrixes noticed above, it is apparent that the present matter has become infructuous. Since the period of engagement of the respondent no. 6 for the period from 2007 to 2010 is already over, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U