IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3322 of 2002 KAMLESH PRASAD YADAV, son of Sri Jibachh Yadav resident of village Bakua, P.O. Bhargaman, P.S. Bheja, District Madhubani. Versus 1.UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi. 2.The Post Master General, Bihar Patna. 3.The Sperintendent of Post Offices, Madhubani Division, District Madhepura. 4.The Inspector of Post Offices, Telecommunications Department, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. 5.Acting Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bakua, P.O. Bhargaman, P.S. Bheja, District Madhubani. 6.Tej Narain Yadav, Son of Ram Gulam Yadav, resident of village Bakua, P.o. Bhargaman, P.S. Bheja, District Madhubani. ----------- 6 16/4/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs as specifically detailed in paragraph 1 of the writ application:- “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus; and/or any other appropriate writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to open the Panchayat Sanchar Kendra for Gram Panchayat Raj Bakua, Madhepura Block, District Madhubani at the location decided by the Gram Panchayat and to accept the petitioner to function as Sanchar Kendra Incharge, as his name has been sponsored by the aforesaid gram panchayat vide its resolution No. 7 dated 2 5.7.2001 and further for a direction to the respondents to cancel the location whereof the Panchyat Sanchar Kendra has been established allowing the respondent no.6 to function as Sanchar Kendra Incharge, ignoring the decision of the Gram Panchayat.” From reading of the aforementioned prayer it would be clear that the petitioner first wants this Court to determine the validity of decision of Gram Panchayat and thereafter direct the respondents for opening the Panchayat Sanchar Kendra in the residential house of the petitioner and also appoint the petitioner as an agent to manage that Kendra. The basis for such claim of the petitioner is said to be a resolution dated 5.7.2001 of Gram Panchayat which has resolved that as there was no building available for opening such Kendra the residential house of the petitioner should be used for opening such Kendra and the petitioner should be allowed to work as agent of the said Kendra. It appears that the said resolution of the Gram Panchayat was not acted upon and the competent authority, namely, the 3 Senior Superintendent of Post Office had decided to open the Kendra in another place and in another premises and thereafter had appointed respondent no.6 to work as agent. Grievance of the petitioner that such site selection or such nomination of respondent no.6 is in teeth of the decision taken by the Gram Panchayat and therefore, this Court should set aside such decision of the Government of India and direct that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat should be acted upon is apparently misconceived. The site selection of the scheme or manner of implementation of scheme including engagement of a person as an agent cannot be made subject matter of a writ application because there is no statutory provision laying down manner of establishment of such Kendra or appointment of an agent for managing such Kendra. This Court fails to understand the limited attack of counsel for the petitioner that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat was not acted upon and the 4 recommendations of Pramukh and the M.L.A for opening Sanchar Kendra at some other place was acted upon. The people’s representatives have definitely a right with regard to implementation of any public programme. This Court, therefore, finds no flaw in selection of site of Panchayat Sanchar Kendra other than residential house of the petitioner. Once it is found that the residential house of the petitioner has not been used for establishment of Sanchar Kendra, the petitioner’s prefential right to make him agent has automatically vanished and the petitioner cannot claim that he was the only best suited candidate in the village for such appointment. In fact, from the resolution it does not appear that any other person was also given a similar offer and to that extent the resolution of Gram Panchayat is itself collusive and illegal. That being so, since no right has been vested in the petitioner in either getting the Sanchar Kendra established in his house and/or his becoming its agent, 5 this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar