Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 434 (PAT)

Ranjan Kumar Chauhan v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-20

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.7 contained in Letter No. 6421 dated 18.10.07 which followed with Memo No. 7390/c dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure-8) giving direction to respondent no.9 to lodged F.I.R. against one Jyotish Kumar Bhagat, who was appointed Executive agent for carrying out some of the schemes in Balrampur Anchal. It has further been prayed that the F.I.R. dated 14.11.2007 lodged by respondent no. 11 contained in Annexure-11 be declared to have been filed in hot haste. 3. The B.D.O., Balrampur vide his letter dated 14.11.2007 gave a written report to the Officer Incharge, Balrampur giving rise to Balrampur P.S. Case No. 52/07 dated 14.11.2007 under Sections 409 and 120B of the I.P.C. against Jyotish Kumar Bhagat, Revenue Assistant, Balrampur Anchal. The B.D.O., Balrampur has stated that the District Magistrate, Katihar vide letter no. 642 dated 18.10.07 and 72152 dated 10.11.07 and Letter No. 192C dated 22.10.2007, D.D.C., Katihar Letter no. 7215C dated 10.11.07 Letter No. 223C dated 12.11.2007 observed that money given to the Executing agent in respect of different schemes have not been accounted for. It has been alleged that as per the aforesaid letters samayojit amount was Rs. 23,85,916/- but measrement accounts for Rs. 16,02,782/-. 4. The petitioner who was B.D.O. for a short span at the relevant period, alleged that the F./.R. has been lodged at the instant of one Khurshid Alam and others, who are the former members of the District Board and others as counter blast to the case lodged against him by Jyotish Kumar Bhagat, executing agent on 11.9.2007 giving rise to Balrampur P.S. Case No, 58/06, dated 13.9.2006, under Sections 341, 342, 504, 353, 332, 384 and 386/34 of I.P.C. and 3(x) of SC/ST Act. Khurshid Alam in order to save his own skin sent a petition making allegation against the petitioner and his staff Jyotish Kumar Bhagat to the Hon ble Lokayukta, Bihar, on 20.9.2006 seeking an enquiry in the matter. It is alleged that, in fact, most of the schemes have been completed, but due measurement of the same have not been done. The Hon ble Lokayukt had directed the D.M., Katihar to get the matter enquired into. The D.M., Katihar directed the D.D.C., Katihar to conduct an enquiry into the matter. 5. It is alleged that, in fact, most of the schemes have been completed, but due measurement of the same have not been done. The Hon ble Lokayukt had directed the D.M., Katihar to get the matter enquired into. The D.M., Katihar directed the D.D.C., Katihar to conduct an enquiry into the matter. 5. Learned counsel submits that measurement of total work has not been taken. He submits that even partial measurements were not taken in presence of the Executing Agent and as such the same would be violation of Sections 87, 88 and 89 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 2006. 6. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the District Magistrate, Katihar, wherein it has been submitted that it prima facie transpires that executing agent has not accounted for Rs. 16,02,782/-. He submits that the petitioner was found guilty for advancing the amount of second instalment to Mr. Bhagat without adjusting the works. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. However, it will be open to the petitioner to represent all these point before the investigating agency. 8. With the aforesaid observation this writ application Is dismissed.