Nutan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.958 of 2026 ====================================================== Nutan Kumari Wife of Vikram Kumar Singh, Resident of Village Muzaffarpur Malahi, P.O. Hansikewal, P.S. - Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The District Magistrate, District - Vaishali at Hajipur. 5.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. 6.

The District Panchayati Raj Officer, District - Vaishali at Hajipur. 7.

The Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Block- Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali through its Executive Officer.

8.

The Pramukh, Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Block- Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali.

9.

The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur -cum- Executive Officer, Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Block - Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali. 10.

The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Block - Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali. 11.

Vishwanath Paswan, presently the Chairman of the Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Block- Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Adv.

Mr.Ujjwal Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishore, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-06-2026 Heard Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nawal Kishore, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner, an elected Member of Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Block Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali, is aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent No. 4, who despite

2/4 having received the complaint filed by the petitioner, has not initiated any inquiry into the allegation of financial irregularities, violation of procurement guidelines and misappropriation of funds at the hands of respondent No. 11 in collusion with other officials.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondents-Panchayati Raj Department vide different letters had granted approval for different schemes and for the said purpose, they released funds in favour of Panchayat Samiti. The Respondent No. 11, however, in complete defiance of the guidelines misused the funds and violated the procurement norms and allowed to carry out sub-standard quality of works. The entire facts have been brought to the knowledge of the respondent no. 4 by filing detailed representation on 03.09.2025. A news item has also been published in the daily newspaper which highlighted the irregularities at the hands of the respondent no. 11. Serious allegations of misconduct and misappropriation has also been levelled upon the office bearers of Panchayat Samiti, especially the respondent no. 9. However, despite several complaints, no steps have been taken. Referring to the Bihar Panchayat (Inspection of Offices and Inquiry Into the Affairs, Supervision and Guidelines) Rules, 2014 (in short

3/4 'Rules 2014'), it is submitted that the District Magistrate is the competent authority to make enquiry into the affairs of Panchayat Samiti under Rule 6 (1) of Rules 2014.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted that instruction would be required in the matter to apprise this Court with regard to the present position.

5. After having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the provisions contemplated under Rules, 2014, this Court finds that under Rule 6 of Rules 2014, the District Magistrate is empowered to inquire into the affairs of Panchayat Samiti by its officers in case of receipt of any complaint. Sub rule(3) of Rule 6 of Rules 2014 categorically states that the District Magistrate may order inquiry into such affairs in which complaints have been received against Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or members or Executive Officer of a Panchayat Samiti with regard to not discharging functions according to the provisions of the Act, ignoring or willfully omitting the directions of the Government or competent authority or committing financial irregularities.

6. Once, the petitioner has filed a complaint before the District Magistrate with respect to the serious financial irregularity and/or non-compliance of the direction of the

4/4 Government or the competent authority, in opinion of this Court, the District Magistrate is obliged to consider the complaint and direct for an inquiry into the affairs of Panchayat Samiti, if prima facie, he finds substance in the complaint. Since, the petitioner has already filed a complaint on 3rd of September, 2025 before the District Magistrate Hajipur, Vaishali, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-P/5, this Court deems it proper to direct the District Magistrate to consider the complaint of the petitioner and call for the record, if required and take appropriate action or enquire the matter in terms with Rules 2014, expeditiously and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7. The writ petitioner stands disposed off.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 19.06.2026 Transmission Date