Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9474 of 2026 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Sharma Son of late Jhari Sharma, Resident of Village- Tajpur Buzurg, P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

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

3.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

4.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali. 5.

The Block Development Officer, Mahua, Vaishali. 6.

The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Mission Director, Lohia Swachh Bihar, Abhiyan, Vaishali 7.

The Director, District Rural Development Agency-cum-Member Secretary, District and Sanitation Samiti, Vaishali.

8.

The Panchayat Sachiv, Tajpur Buzurg, Vaishali. 9.

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Tajpur, Vaishali. 10.

Pankaj Kumar, S/o Naresh Paswan, Resident of Village- Madhopur, P.O.- Mirzanagar, P.s. Mahua, District- Vaishali.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Pleader (17) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed with a view to quash the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9474 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026 2/3 Letter No. 219 dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Director, District Rural Development Agency-cum-Member Secretary, District and Sanitation Samiti, Vaishali (Respondent no. 7). Counsel submits that the initial representation has been filed by the petitioner who was working as Swachhta doot, subsequently called as Swachhagrahi - a front line worker in Tajpur Panchayat. Counsel further submits that for his grievances, the petitioner has moved before the D.D.C., Hajipur, Vaishali who has referred this matter before the B.D.O, Mahua, Vaishali. The B.D.O, Mahua, Vaishali has passed the order which is against the petitioner by which he is aggrieved, and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the same.

3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that under the relevant margdarshika, it is the D.D.C. who is the competent authority to take decision if petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the B.D.O, Mahua, Vaishali.

4. In light of the submissions made, this writ petition stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to move before the D.D.C., Vaishali (Respondent no. 4) against the order impugned within 30 days from today and the Respondent no. 4 shall take decision on the petition filed by the petitioner within

Patna High Court CWJC No.9474 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026 3/3 90 days thereafter hearing all the concerned, if any subsequent right has been developed in favour of any other person. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U