IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3073 of 2008 BIPIN KUMAR THAKUR, S/O SHRI VISHWANATH THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-SAIDANPUR, P.O.-KHANJAHAN CHAK, P.S.-LALGANJ, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, VAISHALI. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LALGANJ, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 4. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SARARIYA, PRAKHAND-LALGANJ, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 5. SHRI SHASHI RANJAN SAH, S/O SHRI RAM BILAS SAH, R/O VILLAGE-SAIDANPUR, PANCHAYAT RAJ- SARAIYA, PRAKHAND-LALGANJ, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 30.06.2011 Petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner (for short ‘D.D.C.’), as contained in Annexure-1, on the ground of jurisdiction. However, since the petitioner has a remedy before the statutory Appellate Authority constituted under the Rules, this Court considers it appropriate for him to approach the Appellate Authority for ventilating his grievances. If he does so within four weeks, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to all the concerned parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date 2 of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Only for the purposes of consideration of the matter on merits by the Appellate Authority, without being prejudiced by the impugned order of the D.D.C., the same is set aside. However, respondent no.5 whose appointment was found valid by the D.D.C. by the impugned order shall not be disturbed from functioning, if he has already joined pursuant to the same, till final orders are passed by the Appellate Authority. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)