IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5958 of 2010 1. MANJU KUMARI W/O SRI SANJAY KUMAR VERMA R/O VILL BAIDRABAD, P.O.BAIDRABAD, P.S.ARWAL, DISTT-ARWAL, PRESENTLY MEMBER OF BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI. ARWAL, DISTT-ARWAL 2. KIRAN KUMARI W/O SRI SHANKAR PRASAD R/O VILL BAIDRABAD, P.O.BAIDRABAD, P.S.ARWAL, DISTT-ARWAL, PRESENTLY MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, MURADPUR HUJARA, BLOCK-ARWAL, DISTT-ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ARWAL, DISTT-ARWAL 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ARWAL , DISTT-ARWAL 6. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, THROUGH THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER 7. THE SECRETARY, THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA ----------- 5/ 01/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are stated to be the members of one of the Gram Panchayats amalgamated to form the Nagar Parishad, Arwal, aggrieved by its creation. The Court has today already dismissed a similar challenge to the creation of Nagar Parishad, Arwal in C.W.J.C. No1046 of 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in response to a query from the District Magistrate, the Block Development Officer only on 1.9.2008 submitted the necessary information under Section-3 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with regard to fulfillment of conditions for declaration of a Nagar Parishad. He submits that the report of the 2 Block Development Officer is itself dated 1.9.2008. Such a public exercise was not possible to be done in one day. The report is therefore not tenable, fictitious and cannot be acted upon. It was next contended that the draft notification was not published in accordance with Section-4 of the Act relying upon the pleadings in support thereof at paragraphs-16 and 17 of the writ petition. In absence of the publication of a draft notification in the manner prescribed under the Statute, the petitioners had been deprived of the right to file objections vitiating the final notification dated 20.5.2009. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that the report of the Block Development Officer is dated 1.9.2008. It does not lead to any presumption that the report was prepared in one day. In fact the nature of the extensive report is itself evidence of it being a time consuming exercise. The draft notification under Section-4 of the Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on 23.12.2008 as also in the Daily Newspapers ‘Dainik Jagaran’ (Hindi) and ‘The Hindustan’ (English) on 29.12.2008. No objections were received from the petitioners. Relying on the first counter affidavit it is reiterated that the draft notification was also pasted at the District Magistrate’s office and other public places including by beating of drum. 3 C.W.J.C. No.1046/10 dismissed today pertains to the constitution of the very same Arwal Nagar Parishad. No objections had been raised in the same that publication of the draft notification was not done in the manner prescribed under Section-4 of the Act. The Court takes judicial note of this fact. When a statutory authority acts in exercise of statutory powers, there shall be a presumption of the correctness of the act and that it was exercised in accordance with law and all procedures followed. The presumption may be rebuttable. The onus shall lie on the person who questions the same. If the petitioner asserted that the draft notification under Section-4 had not been published in the manner required by law, it was for them to specifically assert this as a question of fact to enable the respondents to answer it. Paragraph-16 of the writ application only states that the petitioner No.1 being a member of the Arwal Block Panchayat Samiti had never come across any such notice published in the office of the Block Development Officer. Publication of the draft notification in the office of the Block Development Officer was not a statutory requirement under Section-4 of the Act. If the petitioner was looking for the notification at a wrong place, he cannot urge that the notification was not published in accordance with law. The 4 Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case at all that the draft notification was not published in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section-4. More so, when the respondents have specifically denied this fact and stated to the contrary with supporting evidence. The Court has already held today in C.W.J.C. No.1046/10 that the right to file objections was a statutory right which can be waived by the person in whom the right has been conferred. Once the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that the draft notification was not published in accordance with law and he did not file any objections, for reasons already discussed in C.W.J.C. No.1046/10 the Court is not inclined to interfere. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)