IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11475 of 2009 1. MAHESH KR.PD.NR.SINGH SON OF LATE SHIV CHARAN PD. NR. SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJWARA, P.S. BARAUNI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 2. DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE KEDAR SINGH @ JITENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARHARA, P.S. BARAUNI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 6. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (REVENUE), BEGUSARAI. 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEGHRA SUB-DIVISION, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CIRCLE/BLOCK TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ----------- For the petitioners: M/S Vinay Ranjan, Amit Kr. Anand and Shard Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For the respondents : M/S P.K.Verma, AAG XI and S.R.Sharan, AC to AAG XI. ------------- 3/ 11-09-2009 We heard learned counsel for the petitioners and we also heard learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners, who are the elected representatives Mukhia of the Panchayat, have filed this writ petition for quashing the notification dated 20.05.2009, as contained in Annexure-3 where-under the Gram Panchayat Raj Rajwara, Grahara including seven other Panchayats have been converted into Nagar Parishad, Bihat. The petitioner highlighted in his petition that provision of section 4 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 regarding declaration of intention to - 2 - constitute a Nagar Parishad had not been punished in the official gazette and at least two leading newspapers, at least one of which shall be in vernacular. That apart the petitioner also contended that 75% of the population are not non-agriculturist, as required under section 3 of the Bihar Municipal Act. On this point we had called for the State counsel to obtain instructions by our previous order dated04.09.2009. The counsel for the State has produced before us the file containing all the relevant materials. From the contents of the file it is apparent that the publication had been made in the news paper “Hindustan” as well as in the “Dainik Jagran”. The publication in the newspaper “Dainkik Jagran”is in Hindi whereas the publication in the Hindustan newspaper is in English. In our considered opinion, there is a deliberate attempt on behalf of the petitioner to mislead this Court by contending that no publication was made. The law is well settled that the person, who is approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should come with clean hand and should not make a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. The file produced by the Counsel for the State indicates that the District Magistrate had reported that more than 75% of the population were non-agriculturists and on the basis of such report action had been taken by the respondents. In this situation we do not think it possible on the part of the High Court to go into the question raised by the petitioner and to quash Annexure-3. However, we left it open to the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the State Government so that the State Government may go into all these aspects - 3 - and if necessary pass necessary orders. It is made clear that if any representation is filed, the State Government should consider it on its own merit without being prejudiced by the fact that the matter has not been interfered with by the High Court. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. ( P. K. Misra, CJ ) ( Anjana Prakash, J ) BTiwary/