IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10437 of 2009 1. URMILA DEVI, wife of Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Debuniya Saifganj and Katihar, P.S. Katihar Muffasil, Katihar, District- Katihar. 2. Md. Razaque Ansari,son of Md. Karim Ansari, Ward Member Deharya Panchayat, Ward No.2, P.S. Katihar Muffasil, District- Katihar. 3. Md. Akbar Ali, son of Md. Nazir Ali, Ward Member of Panchayat Samiti Daharya, Ward No.1, P.S. Katihar Muffasil, District- Katihar. 4. Md. Anwar Ansari, son of Md. Kartik Mian, ward Member of Ward No.4 of Daharya Panchayat, P.S. Katihar Muffasil, District- Katihar. 5. Ganesh Prasad Tanti, son of Late Santokhi Mistry, resident of village- Chitouria, P.S. Katihar Muffasil, Katihar, District- Katihar. ….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Department. 3. Deputy Secretary-cum-Director, Urban Development and Housing Department. 4. Joint Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department. 5. Collector, Katihar. 6. State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Veer Chandra Patel Marg, Bihar, Patna through the Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna. 7. Secretary, State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Veer Chandra Patel Marg, Bihar, Patna. .....Respondents ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. R. S. Dwivedi, Advocate. For the State of Bihar : Mr. P. K. Verma, AAG XI. For the Respondent nos. 6 & 7: Mr. R. S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Advocate. ------------- 2/ 24.08.2009 Heard Mr. R. S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. K. Verma, AAG XI, for the State of Bihar and Mr. R. S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate, for the State Election Commission. This writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed challenging the order dated 18.5.2009, and the consequential notification dated 9th July,2009, wherein certain villages of Katihar district have been included for declaring the part of the area of Katihar Nagar Nigam. - 2 - The contention of the petitioners is that they were not given the adequate opportunity of personal hearing. However, on perusal of the materials available on record, it is clear that concerned villagers had opportunity to file objections and, in fact, objections were filed and taken into consideration before passing the impugned order. We do not think that such a matter can be raised as public interest litigation and, therefore, we are not entertaining this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, the present order would not stand in the way of the petitioners in making any further representation to the State Government. JA/- (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)