IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.850 of 2010 Arun Kumar Srivastava s/o late Mangal Prasad, r/o village – Belbanwa, P.S. Jogopatti, District – West Champaran, presently Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Rohtas at Sasaram Versus 1. Maharani Sunita Gandha w/o Sri Anjani Kumar r/o village + P.O. Gosadih, P.S. – Suryapura, District – Rohtas at Sasaram, at present Chairman, Zila Parishad, Rohtas at Sasaram 2. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary cum Panmchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Additional Commissioner, Patna 5. District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram 6. Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram 7. Additional Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram 8. Officer-in-charge, Model Police Station, Rohtas at Sasaram ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Arvind Kumar No.11, Advocate For the State: Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, Advocate For the pvt. Respondent: Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate 2 12/5/2010 Heard Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, learned senior counsel, along with Mr. Arvind Kumar No.11, learned counsel for the appellant , Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the State. In this intra-court appeal the challenge is to the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge 2 in CWJC. No.18022 of 2009. Questioning the correctness of the order, it is submitted by Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that there has been stalemate and further committed an error by directing the State Government to issue certain specific directions which are not permissible in law. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent – writ petitioner, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have carefully perused the order of the learned Single Judge. He has expressed a prima facie opinion that there is the stalemate in the functioning of the Zila Parishad. After so holding, the learned Single Judge has directed as follows:- “In view of the facts, as noted above and the resolution/representation of majority of the elected members of Zila Parishad, I direct the State Government to take a decision in the matter and resolve the stalemate there either by replacing respondent no.7 or taking such other steps that may be necessary, so that functioning of Zila Parishad is not affected in any manner and the elected representations are permitted to work freely to the extent as permitted by law. State must take decision in this regard within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before the 3 Special Secretary, Panchayati Raj.” In our considered opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge is justified to the extent that the State Government shall take a decision and resolve the stalemate. That is the obligation cast on the State Government under Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. As far as other directions issued by the learned Single Judge, which are likely to bind the State Government, are not appropriate. Matter should be left to the State Government to remove the stalemate so that the democracy functions at the grass- root level. We direct that the State Government shall do the needful within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. With the aforesaid modification in the order impugned, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the State to do the needful. Neyaz/ ( Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)