IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3050 of 2010 ***** 1. SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH (MEMBER,PANCHAYAT SAMITI MARHAURA) S/O SHRI RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL DEO BAHUARA, P.O. DEO BAHUARA, P.S.MARHAURA, DISTT-SARAN (CHAPRA). …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE SARAN 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE CHAPRA, SARAN 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHAPRA, SARAN 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MARHAURA, SARAN. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, Additional Advocate General-IV ------------ 2. 3.3.2010. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned counsel for the State. Though various assertions have been made in this public interest litigation, the grievance in singularity, if we allow ourselves to say so, relates to certain non- compliance of the constitutional provisions engrafted under Article 243 and the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. - 2 - Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are only inclined to direct that the competent authorities of the State and the functionaries of the State, who have been arrayed as the respondents, should keep in view the constitutional philosophy, goal and the mandate of the Act while working out the plans and such other ancillary factors. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)