IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9094 of 2008 DINANATH GIRI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C. XV ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------------- Dated, the 23rd September, 2008. No counter affidavit has been filed by the government counsel despite opportunity given to him on 23rd July, 2008 and 22nd August, 2008. 2. The petitioner, by means of this Public Interest Litigation, has brought to the notice of the court that Mukhia, Gram Panchayat, Balwa Bhawanipur has made allotment under Indira Awas Yojana to his own persons including even those who are not residents of Balwa Bhawanipur. It is alleged that real beneficiaries have been deprived of the scheme because of wrongful acts of the Mukhia. The misdeeds of Mukhia, Grampanchayat, Balwa Bhawanipur are said to have been brought to the notice of the District Magistrate by representations dated 1st November, 2007 and 22nd November, 2007 but when no action was taken, the petitioner has approached this court. The petitioner has prayed that enquiry be made into the acts and - 2 - omissions of Mukhia, Grampanchayat, Balwa with regard to diverse schemes executed by grampanchayat, Balwa Bhawanipur and for a direction to the concerned authorities to dispose of the representations made by the petiitoner. 3. Having considered the matter, we are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice – The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah shall consider and dispose of the representations made by the petitioner on 1st November, 2007 and 22nd November, 2007. If any merit is found in the allegations made in the said representations, the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah shall take appropriate action permissible in law against the erring Mukhia, Grampanchayat, Balwa Bhawanipur. Needless to say that before taking any action, the District Magistrate shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected person. 4. Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/