Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3477 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8460 of 2015 ====================================================== Ravi Kumar, male aged about 37 years, Son of Late Nagina Mandal Resident of Village Gobardhanchak, Bishunpur, P.S Koilwar, District Bhojpur Ara. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj. 2.

The Collector-cum-District -Magistrate Bhojpur, Ara. 3.

The District Panchayati Raj Officer Bhojpur, Ara. 4.

Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Ara.

5.

Block Panchayati Raj Officer Koilwar, District Bhojpur. 6.

Block Panchayati Raj Officer Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. 7.

Sarpanch Mathurapur Panchayat Koilwar District- Bhojpur. ... ... Opposite Parties-respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

AAG-VI ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-08-2022 It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the stand of the State has been recorded in order dated 07-08-2019 passed in CWJC No. 8460 of 2015, which reads as follows:- "Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for appointment of the petitioner as Nyay Sachiv in Mathurapur Panchayat of Koilwar Block.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents. The fact that the petitioner was being prevented or was not being allowed to join by respondent No.7, Sarpanch, has been admitted in the counter affidavit.

Specific stand has been taken that

Patna High Court MJC No.3477 of 2019(3) dt.24-08-2022 2/2 respondent No. 7 has appointed another person in place of the petitioner though he was not competent to do so. The Authorities have stated that action was going to be taken against respondent No.7 under Section 97(5) for removing the Sarpanch. Stand has been placed by way of counter affidavit filed in the year 2017.

None appears for the petitioner.

Even State counsel is not aware as to what has transpired thereafter.

In the circumstances the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution."

In view thereof no further order is required to be passed in the instant case.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U