IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.262 of 2010 1. RAMBHA DEVI W/O RAMESHWAR DAS R/O VILL- CHANDPUR BHANGHA, P.S. JANKINAGAR, DISTT. PURNIA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ELECTION) PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE COMMISSIONER PURNEA 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PURNEA 7. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER PURNEA 8. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BANMANKHI, DISTT. PURNEA 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BANMANKHI, DISTT. PURNEA 10. KAMESHWAR RISHIDEO S/O LATE DEBDUTTA RISHIDEO R/O VILL- CHANDPUR BHANGHA, P.S. JANKINAGAR, DISTT. PURNEA ----------- 02 23.02.2010 The petitioner was Mukhiya and has been removed by an order passed by the State Government in terms of Section 85 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. The said order is under challenge. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the State Government has passed its order on the findings as arrived by the Collector in an enquiry which was held ex parte. Having perused the order, in my view, that is not correct. The report of the District Magistrate was disclosed to the petitioner along with the show cause and petitioner did file his show cause taking into account the enquiry report of the Collector. Thus, the authorities which had to take adverse decision had before taking into account the report of the Collector disclosed the report to the petitioner, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It is then submitted that petitioner’s show cause has not been considered when the State Government is acting under Section 18(5) of the Act. It is acting in a quasi judicial - 2 - capacity and not like the Court. A reference to the impugned order would show that what the petitioner had to say in his show cause has been noted, what was said by the Collector has also been noted. Why the State accepts the finding against the petitioner is also stated. Thus, there is a fair consideration apparent from the face of the record. Merely, because the authority decides to accept one view or the other does not make it either a non-speaking order or an order in violation of principles of natural justice in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. This Court is not sitting as an Appellate Court over the decision of the State Government in this regard. The judicial review to the petitioner is limited. I find no error in the order calling interference. The writ petition is dismissed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)