Smt. Malti Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22775 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Smt. Malti Devi, W/O- Ramjatan Paswan.

2. Smt. Sabnam Devi, W/O - Shyam Paswan.

Both are residents of Village - Mehtarwan, P.S. - Tharthari, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Nalanda.

2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda.

3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda.

4. The Gramin Development Agency, Nalanda.

5. The Block Development Officer, Nalanda.

6. Panchayat Secretary, Kachahariya, Block- Tharthari, District - Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhish Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha, GP-19 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order bearing Memo no.433 dated 11.9.2013 of the Block Development Officer, Tharthari, District- Nalanda, whereby the two petitioners have been charged with misrepresentation with the authorities for obtaining relief under the Indira Awas Scheme. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners has questioned the order on limited grounds, namely: (a) That the enquiry was not conducted in presence of the petitioners;

(b) The copy of the enquiry-report was never handed over to the petitioners; and (c) The order has been passed ex-parte and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22775 of 2013 dt.20-04-2016 Although a counter affidavit has been filed supporting the impugned order but in my opinion the issues raised stands confirmed by the impugned order itself which entirely rests on the enquiry report. Whether or not the petitioners have followed the terms of the scheme they were definitely entitled to place their defence in a duly constituted proceeding before the Block Development Officer proceeded to pass the impugned order which accompanies institution of a criminal case.

On the limited count discussed above, the order impugned bearing Memo No.1132 dated 11.9.2013 of the Block Development Officer, Tharthari, District- Nalanda cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside.

This order will not preclude the Block Development Officer to move afresh against the petitioners but in accordance with law and only after service of copy of enquiry report on the petitioners and after giving them an opportunity of hearing to place their case.

The writ petition is allowed.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 21-04-2016 Transmission Date