IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.375 of 2011 TUNTUN YADAV . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 25/2/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is the elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayt Raj Kumna, district Saran aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2010 unseating him from that post passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj in exercise of powers under Section-18(5) of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations relate to a solitary case of appointments. Those who were appointed and terminated have approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.18244/09. The writ petition is pending and the termination orders have been stayed. Even if learned counsel for the petitioner were right in his submission that it was a solitary act of appointment and that on a writ petition filed by the appointees this Court has stayed the termination, the question still arises with regard to the wrong appointment made by him of his own son and when issues were discovered, unable to defend himself his 2 son resigned. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that the comments of the District Magistrate on the cause shown were not given to him with an opportunity to rebut has no relevance in view of the absence of any denial by the petitioner in the entire writ petition or in his reply to the show cause notice that his son had not been appointed and following discovery of the illegal appointment has not resigned. Each case shall have to be judged on its own facts. There may be cases where a solitary act of misconduct, displaying a gross abuse of the powers given in trust may be sufficient. The present is one such case. There can be no further abuse of powers when the Mukhiya reduces his elected post to his private fiefdom forgetting that he is answerable to those who elected him. The Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction finds no reason to interfere. The facts of the present case are completely distinguishable from the judgement reported in AIR 2001 S.C.2524 (Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab). The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)