IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11863 of 2009 ANKIT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 9.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admitted position is that vide notification dated 25.10.2008 in exercise of power under section 17(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 the present petitioner who is Up- Mukhiya was allowed to function and discharge the duty of Mukhiya in absence of Mukhiya. It seems that there was a criminal case pending against the Mukhiya which took him away from the post and responsibility. When he was granted bail in the case he came back to shoulder the responsibility of Mukhiya. The Block Development Officer Chourahi Block, Begusarai has directed the Up-Mukhiya to relinquish charge from the post of Mukhiya and this order is under challenge in the present writ application. The direction in question is dated 17.12.2008 contained in annexure-4. Submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that in absence of any direction from the superior the B.D.O. has no authority to direct the petitioner to hand over charge because the earlier direction was Nedeshanushar. The provision under sub-section 17(2) of the Act or any rule made thereto does not indicate that any command or direction of superior is required by the B.D.O. to direct the petitioner to relinquish charge. Accepted position in law is that - 2 - Up-Mukhiya (petitioner) has only to function as Mukhiya in absence of Mukhiya and if the Mukhiya returns back, he being as elected public representative must be given his due and the petitioner must relegate to his back position. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. This writ application is misplaced and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)