Manoj Lohda v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25390 of 2019 ====================================================== Manoj Lohda S/o Satyanarayan Uraon R/o Kerai Ward No. 3, P.o.- Semra Medraul, Kerai, P.s.- Semara, Dist.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The Divisonal Commissioner Tirhut, Muzaffarpur 3.

The District Magistrate West Champaran at Bettiah 4.

The Superintendent of Police West Champaran at Bettiah 5.

The Block Development Officer-Bagaha-02 West Champaran at Bettiah 6.

The Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Bagaha-2, Naraipur, West Champaran at Bettiah 7.

Prabhas Kumar Ward Secretary, Ward No. 3, Paikwaliya, Maryadpur Panchayat, Bagaha-2, West Champaran at Bettiah ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ajay (GA-5) For the Bank : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is seeking a direction for holding an inquiry into the matter relating to embezzlement of huge amount of money of Chief Minister's Nal Jal Yojna in Ward No. 3, Paikwaliya Maryadpur Panchayat, Bagaha-2, West Champaran in collusion with the Mukhiya and Bank officials. The petitioner is admittedly a Ward Member. It is his case that substantial amount has been withdrawn using the petitioner's signature on three cheques, which have been misappropriated. It is also the petitioner's case that amount has also been withdrawn by the Secretary in connivance with the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat through other

Patna High Court CWJC No.25390 of 2019(2) dt.19-12-2019 2/2 cheques by putting the petitioner's forged signature.

3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has already filed a complaint case in respect of the same dispute.

4. In such circumstance, this Court need not go into the dispute, which is already pending before a criminal Court on the basis of a complaint case filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District authorities may be directed to cause an enquiry. This Court does not stop the authorities from holding any enquiry.

6. No order is needed from this Court for the said purpose.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may be directed to expeditiously conclude the criminal case. In the present civil writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot entertain such prayer.

8. This application is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) arun/- U