IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1777 of 2011 ALKA KUMARI WIFE OF CHUNCHUN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHOJAGACHHI P.S. BARBIGHA DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHPURA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SHEIKHPURA. P.S. & DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BARBIGHA, P.S. BARBIGHA DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. .. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: M/s. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate & Dr Anjani Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, Asst. Counsel to SC-III. ----------- 2. 04.02.2011 Heard Sri Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is the Mukhiya of Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat within Barbigha Block of Sheikhpura District. She has been unseated from the office by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) under order bearing memo no.249 dated 13.01.2011, Annexure-1, 2 holding that she abused her authority as Mukhiya and misconduct herself by renewing the cattle license No. 01 of 2008 even though the lands over which the cattle fair was directed to be held by the petitioner was subject matter of 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceeding and the cattle fair license was cancelled by the District Magistrate but ignoring the two facts petitioner renewed the cattle license and thereby created law and order problem over the lands in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 2001 SUPREME COURT 2524 paragraph-6 and 10 that the petitioner neither misused her power nor conducted any misconduct by granting renewal of the cattle license as cattle license was granted/renewed by the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat and Collector of the District had no jurisdiction to cancel the license. In this connection learned counsel further referred to the provisions contained in Section 22 (xvii) of the Act which empower the Gram Panchayat to settle the cattle fair and submitted that Collector should not have cancelled 3 the license issued by the Gram Panchayat. In any case, the order of the Collector of the District, cancelling the cattle license granted by the Gram Panchayat being wholly without jurisdiction is fit to be ignored by the authorities of the Gram Panchayat including the petitioner Mukhiya and the State Government ought not to have unseated the petitioner for ignoring the cancellation of the cattle fair license made by the Collector. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that isolated act of ignoring the cancellation of the cattle license made by the Collector should not be the ground for unseating the petitioner on the charge of misconduct and thereby disqualifying her from seeking reelection for six years from the date of disqualification. Learned counsel also placed reliance over the order of this Court dated 25.01.2011 passed in the case of Narayan Lal Biswas Vs. State bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10659 of 2009. 4. Counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned order dated 13.01.2011, Annexure-1 and submitted that action has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of the report received from the District Magistrate dated 14.11.2009 whereunder 4 Government was informed that the petitioner Mukhiya ignored the order of the District Magistrate cancelling the cattle license and renewed the license for holding cattle fair over the lands which are subject matter of 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceeding and thereby law and order problem was created over the land. Learned counsel for the State also pointed out that Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra) and of this Court in the case of Narayan Lal Biswas may not have any bearing over the facts of the present case. In this connection he further submitted that Tarlochan Dev Sharma was unseated from the office of the President of the Municipal Council for withholding the cheque dated 20.11.1998 issued by the Executive Officer for payment to the supplier of fogging machine which was subsequent to the notice dated 19.08.1998 issued to Tarlochan Dev Sharma and his reply dated 8.9.1998. As regards order dated 25.01.2011 passed in the case of Narayan Lal Biswas, learned counsel for the State submitted that Narayan Lal Biswas being the Chairman of the selection committee took corrective measure no sooner illegality made in the appointment of Maulvi was detected 5 and cancelled the illegal appointment, the State Government without appreciating the corrective measure taken by Narayan Lal Biswas unseated him from the office of Mukhiya. 5. The facts of the case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable. In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra) the removal order was set aside as the same was passed relying on events which was subsequent to the show-cause notice and reply of Tarlochan Dev Sharma. In the case of Narayan Lal Biswas (supra) corrective measures were taken by Narayan Lal Biswas no sooner illegality in the appointment was of Maulvi was detected. Facts of the instant case are, however, quite glaring and obvious. On the date of renewal of the cattle license, the license stood cancelled by the Collector of the District as 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceeding remained pending to determine possession over which cattle fair was directed to be held by the petitioner. The order cancelling the cattle license passed by the Collector of the District could not have been ignored by the petitioner. In case petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the Collector of the District he 6 should have challenged the same. Renewal of the cattle license by the petitioner has led to law and order problem over the lands in question. In the circumstances, Government is justified in unseating him from the office of Mukhiya under order dated 13.01.2011, Annexure-1 in exercise of powers contained in Sub-section(5) of Section 18 of the Act on the basis of the report of the Collector of the District dated 14.11.2009 I do not see any illegality in such exercise of power by State Government. The writ petition is dismissed. AFR/ Ibrar ( V. N. Sinha, J.)