IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1298 of 2009 TAPENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O DINESHWAR PD. SINGH Resident of VILL. SAIDPUR, P.S. MANSI, DISTT. KHAGARIA. .. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, KHAGARIA 4. SMT. PUNAM DEVI W/O SRI BIJENDRA KUMAR VILL.- EANIA, P.S. MANSI, DISTT.- KHAGARIA. .. Respondent.. Respondents ------- For the appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Anup Kumar Chongdar, Adv. For S.E.C. : Mr. R. S. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Rajveev Lochan, Adv, For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-III : Mr. Awdesh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G. P. 15 ----------- 3. 12.04.2010 Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the order dated 9.11.2009 to highlight that he has filed an application for amendment challenging the constitutional validity of Section 136(1)(g) as well as 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 as they run counter to Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. 2 At this juncture, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General-III appearing for the State and Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission have submitted that the controversy has been put to rest in C.W. J. C. No. 4844 of 2008 (Manoj Bind @ Manoj Kumar Bind vs. State of Bihar and others ) decided on 29.9.2008. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the Division Bench in the case of Manoj Bind has not considered the decision rendered in the case of Sri Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004(4) PLJR, 482 wherein the pari materia provision was declared to be violative of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Regard being had to the factual matrix and the authority that has been cited at the Bar, we are disposed to think the same should not be adverted in this Letters Patent Appeal as the basic challenge pertains to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. In view of the aforesaid, while not entertaining the appeal, we grant liberty to the appellant to prefer an 3 appropriate petition challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision, if so advised. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)