Chandra Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8816 of 2011 =========================================================== Chandra Kishore Singh, Son of Late Baidya Nath Singh, resident of VillageKumarpatti, P.O.- Bharthi, P.S. Simari, District- Darbhanga . .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The Collector, Darbhanga

4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Darbhanga

5. The District Engineer District Board, Darbhanga

6. The Block Development Officer, Singhwara, Distt.- Darbhanga .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Narendra Kr. Singh, AC to GP2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-07-2015 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.04.2011, passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) contained in Annexure-7. The petitioner also prays for quashing the consequential order dated 26.04.2011, passed by the Collector, Darbhanga (Annexure-8).

The petitioner submits that he has been removed from the post of Mukhia on previous charges and as such it cannot be relevant consideration for removal.

Counsel for the respondents referring to Annexure-7 submits that some of the charges are of the year 2007-2008 and as such cannot be said that the charges are of the previous terms.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8816 of 2011 dt.17-07-2015 2 / 2 I find materials lacking in the pleadings. It is nowhere averred as to when the petitioner was elected as a Mukhia, which was very relevant fact to be incorporated in the petition. On the own showing, since some of the charges are of the year 2007-08 and some of the year, 2011. As such, I do not agree with the submission of the petitioner that he has been removed only on the basis of the charges of the previous term, as such I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U