IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18271 of 2009 GANESH PRASAD THAKUR, S/O LATE DEONANDAN THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-BEENA, P.S. SUPAUL, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SUPAUL, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. -RESPONDENTS 2 23.12.2009 Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ramchandra Prasad Bharti, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Having heard Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharti, learned counsel for the State, we are of the considered opinion that it would be advisable on the part of the petitioner to move a fresh representation attracting the attention of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul, the respondent no.3 herein, so that he can take appropriate steps under the Gram Panchayat Raj Act. The Collector, being a statutory authority, must remember that when such allegations have been made he has to act in a prompt manner as that is the requisite in a democratic body 2 polity. Hence, we command the Collector to objectively consider the allegations and take appropriate action as mandated in law. The representation, as directed herein, shall be submitted within a period of four weeks and the Collector- cum-District Magistrate shall address himself to the controversy with utmost objective within a period of six weeks therefrom. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) AAhmad