IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2887 of 2010 1. RAM SINGHASAN MOUAR S/O SRI BALIRAM MOUR R/O VILL.- ARAI, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DAUDNAGAR, AURANGABAD 5. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, AURANGABAD 6. MD. RAIS ALAM S/O GULAM MOINUDDIN R/O OF MUNSHI JI KA GALI, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 7. MANOJ KUMAR S/O NAGESHWAR LAL R/O VILL.- ARAI, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) ----------- 2/ 02/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is not considered necessary to issue notice to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 at this stage in view of the nature of the order to be passed. The petitioner is stated to be the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat- Arai, Block- Daudnagar, Aurangabad aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2010 of the Block Development Officer, Daudnagar directing him to disburse payments to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Nyaya Mitra failing which appropriate action shall be taken. It appears from a letter dated 12.11.2009 of the Commissioner, Magadh Division that the private respondents had made certain allegations against the petitioner for demands of illegal gratification before payment of the honorarium. During enquiry into the same, it was revealed that the private respondents were continuously absent affecting Government works. The 2 Commissioner had taken a serious view of the matter and a date i.e. 19.11.2009 was fixed for enquiry by the Commissioner himself to show cause as to why appointments of the private respondents be not cancelled for continued absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that he is not aware what happened in the enquiry and what orders were passed by the Commissioner in such enquiry. The impugned order dated 18.1.2010 also makes no reference to the order of the Commissioner or the final order passed therein. From the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 it appears that an enquiry was held in pursuance of the letter of the Commissioner dated 12.11.2009 and further directions were issued by the office of the Commissioner on 22.12.2009 followed by the directions of the District Magistrate dated 13.1.2010 in light thereof. The instructions to the petitioner came to be issued in pursuance thereof. The writ petition is completely silent with regard to the two documents attributed to the Commissioner and the District Magistrate in the impugned order in furtherance of the enquiry. Merely because the petitioner may state that he is not aware of the contents of the same shall not 3 suffice at this stage since the matter appears to be pertaining more to the executive domain and decisions taken after an enquiry. Once the Commissioner has held an enquiry himself and passed certain orders, the petitioner is required to implement the same unless the same is challenged, set aside, modified or varied. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)