IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16996 of 2009 1. SMT. NOOR JHAN W/O NOORNE OLA @ SHAHZADA R/O VILL.- BASANT, P.O.- BANDPURA, P.S.- KATARA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR, MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BANDPURA, BLOCK- KATARA, MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATARA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 7. UP-MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BANDPURA, BLOCK- KATARA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.S.B.K.Manglam For the State : A.C. to G.P. 21 2 2.2.2010 Petitioner has challenged the letter dated 13.11.2009 of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur to the Block Development Officer, Katara, District- Muzaffarpur. By the said communication it has been stated that there is a criminal case instituted against the petitioner, who is the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat- Bandpura being Katra P.S.case no. 86 of 2007. It is stated that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail having been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, petitioner is absconding and accordingly not performing his function. In view of Section 17(2b) of the Bihar Panchayat Act, Upmukhiya has to be entrusted with the duty and function of the Mukhiya. A further challenge has been made to the recommendation of the Collector of the district to the State Government in terms of Section 18(5) of the Act for - 2 - removal of the petitioner as Mukhiya because of the said criminal case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. So far as matter in regard to Section 18(5) of the Act is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage merely because it is the recommendation to the State. The petitioner would get a cause to challenge the same if and when final orders are passed and not on mere apprehension thereof. So far as the first order is concerned, petitioner has brought on record the document to show that the case having been filed, investigations are proceedings and prima facie till now petitioner’s involvement has not bee affirmed. Petitioner further asserts that he is duly performing the duty of Mukhiya. He is not absenting from his duty or any meeting. In my view, in terms of Section 18(5) of the Act, if petitioner is absent from three consecutive meetings that would be an independent ground from taking action but apparently that is not factually available and therefore no action has been taken on that ground nor recommended on that ground, which itself shows that the petitioner is present in meeting. From supplementary affidavit of the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner is working from the report of Block Development Officer. Be that as it may, merely institution of a criminal case and not having got anticipatory bail is no ground to hold that the petitioner is - 3 - not discharging his function as a Mukhiya. In that view of the matter I am left with no option but to set aside the order of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur dated 13.11.2009 with a liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)