Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 626 (PAT)

Arjun Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-04-24

S.N.JHA

body2000
Judgment 1. The petitioners who are ex-Mukhiya and residents of Nadnama Panchayat are aggrieved by the inclusion of the said Panchayat in the newly created Ramgarh Chowk block comprising of Nonegarh, Tetarhat, Nandnama, Billo, Surari Imam Nagar, Sharma, Aure and Bhawaria Panchayats from Halsi and Lakhisarai blocks. Out of the aforesaid eight Panchayats five were in Halsi Block while the remaining three were in Lakhisarai block. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in terms of the relevant provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961 a new block cannot be created without consulting the Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad. Since In the present case no such consultation was made, the decision to create the aforesaid block is illegal. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on an order of this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar, CWJC No. 6309 of 1993. 3. It appears that while deciding the aforesaid case, their lordships took into considerations the relevant provisions of Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961, though by that time the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 had come into force. In fairness however, it must be stated that the corresponding provisions of the two Acts are pari materia the same. Section 33A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act contain provisions similar to the one contained in Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act. The Section lays down that for the purpose of the Act, the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette declare any area within the district to be a block, include any area in that block or exclude any area from any such block or transfer any area to one or the other but before issuing any such notification, the consent of the concerned Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad will have to be obtained. It may be pointed out here that by virtue of a corrigendum published in the Official Gazette on 4.11.95, the word consent mentioned in Section 33A has to be read as Opinion. 4. It may be pointed out here that by virtue of a corrigendum published in the Official Gazette on 4.11.95, the word consent mentioned in Section 33A has to be read as Opinion. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that after the Gram Panchayats Samitis and Zila Parishads ceased to exist following the direction of the Supreme Corut in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. Government of U.P., Civil Writ Petition No. 719/95, the powers and functions of those bodies are being performed by the concerned District Magistrates and as would appear from Annexure-2, enclosed by the petitioner himself, that the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Lakhisarai had already recommended the creation of the new block called Ramgarh Chowk Block vide his letter dated 12.9.88. The requirement of the statute was thus fully satisfied. 5. In the above premises, I am satisfied that there has been no violation of the statutory provisions in the creation of the Ramgarh Chowk Block. 6. Counsel for the petitioner questioned the wisdom of inclusion of Nandnama Panchayat in the Ramgarh Chowk Block. In my opinion, however, this aspect of the matter is non-justiciable, and that is a matter which falls within the exclusive domain of the Government. The petitioners may take recourse to other remedies. 7. No case is made out for interference by this Court. The writ petition stands dismissed.