IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3853 of 2009 ANWARI KHATOON WIDOW OF LATE MD. IQBAL HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HUSSEINGANJ, POST OFFICE- BHARTHAULI, VIA- JAMHUR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD, MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT- KARMA BHAGWAN BLOCK- AURANGABAD, DISTRICT AURANGABAD, BIHAR. . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE IN THE OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR HAVING ITS OFFICE IN THE OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AURANGABAD. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Nawal Kishore Singh and Onkar Kumar, Advocates. For State : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, A.C. to G.A. VII. ----------- 4/ 03.03.2010 The petitioner challenges the order, as contained in Annexure-1, being the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division Gaya, dated 28.11.2007 as affirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue by order dated 19.12.2008 by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Mukhiya of Karma Bhagwan Block, district Aurangabad. Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 has itself stood amended in 2009. I have perused the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya as well as that of Member, Board of Revenue and I am unable to uphold the same. On perusal - 2 - of the order of Member, Board of Revenue, it is clear that repeatedly the Member, Board of Revenue, has held that from the order of the Commissioner, Gaya it is clear that the petitioner was not able to manage her work as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Karma Bhagwan. The handling of Mukhiya was far from satisfactory. Allegations relate to alleged irregularities committed in course of counseling for selection of Panchayat teacher. In this connection I may refer to section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. It is noted that if a person is unable to properly manage the affairs as Mukhiya, he can be removed. It is only if the powers are abused or misused such an action can be taken. Only the allegation is that in course of counseling, registers were not properly filled up. Petitioner’s written defence, which is not denied, is that she is virtually illiterate person. She can only sign. She can neither write nor read. All records are maintained by the Panchayat Secretary and the members of the Niyojan Committee. For irregularity in maintenance of those registers the petitioner cannot be punished. Moreover, when the counseling itself was cancelled and fresh counseling were done thereafter. This is not a case of abuse or misuse of power. Both the Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue have noted that the Panchayat Secretary, who is Government official, was also found - 3 - guilty for which he has been suspended. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of writ states that though the petitioner was removed from the post of Mukhiya, the said Panchayat Secretary has now been reinstated. Be that as it may, merely on the ground of some technical irregularities which itself did not result any appointment, it is not a fit case which would fall within the ambit of abuse or misuse of power and thus no case is made out for exercise of power under section 18(5) of the said Act. Even if a Mukhiya is incompetent in efficiency that cannot be a ground for his or her removal. The grounds are specific. In that view of the matter the orders of the Commissioner, Gaya and the learned Member, Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and they are set aside. The writ petition is allowed. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J ) BTiwary/