IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16995 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Brij Bihari Sharma S/O Bali Ram Sharma R/O Vill Chariyari, P.S.Makdumpur, Distt-Jahanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner -Cum-Secretary, Gram Panchayati Raj Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner Magadh Division Gaya, Distt-Gaya 4. The Collector Jahanabad, Distt-Jahanabad 5. The District Gram Panchayati Raj Officer Jahanabad, Distt-Jahanabad 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer Jahanabad 7. The Block Development Officer Makdampur, Distt-Jahanabad 8. Om Prakash Sinha S/O Late Rambrat Sinha R/O Vill Chariyari, P.S.Makdampur, Distt-Jahanabad, At Present Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Chariyari, P.S.Makdumpur, Distt-Jahanabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Choudhary Prem Kr.Thakur For the Respondent/s : Mr. (SC5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN) 2 20-12-2011 The petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction that action may be taken against respondent no. 8 i.e. Om Prakash Sinha under Section 18 (5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The basis for the allegation is contained in Annexure-1. Annexure-1 is a letter issued by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad informing respondent no. 8 that he has been selected as a Teacher of a Middle School. It has further Patna High Court CWJC No.16995 of 2010 (2) dt.20-12-2011 2 / 2 2 been stated in the said letter that if the petitioner wishes to join the said post, he may join within a period of ten days. The petitioner has not annexed any substantial documents to show that respondent no. 8 was working as a Government Teachers. At Annexure-3, while making a representation to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, he has stated that the petitioner had received the salary for a period of 8-9 months. The aforesaid allegations that respondent no. 8 is disqualified for holding the post of a Mukhiya is with respect to the election which was held in the year 2006. After working successfully as a Mukhiya between 2006 to 2011, Counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that respondent no. 8 has again been elected to the post of Mukhiya. As far as the first period is concerned, the writ application has virtually become infructuous in view of the fact that the period has expired. There being no substantial material, this Court is not going to order for an enquiry. The petitioner would have the liberty to approach the appropriate authority in the matter. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)