IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4839 of 2011 BHOLA PANDIT . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Akashdeep & Shyameshwar kumar Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. D.K.Sinha, AAG 2 ------- 4. 05.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Kutchery Phulad, District Vaishali, aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2011 of the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, unseating him from the post in exercise of powers under Section 97(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the SDO, the original authority for deciding disputes of appointments under the Bihar Gram Kutchery (Appointment, Condition of Service and Duty) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules) had rejected the objection of the candidate Arbind Kumar Singh Bindu and upheld appointment of Santosh Thakur. The appeal against the same lay before the District Magistrate. The Collector of the district had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal and hold in favour of Arbind Kumar Singh Bindu. It is next submitted that the petitioner was required to be given a show cause notice under Rule 97(5) by the State Government alone. A show cause notice from the District Magistrate or the Monitoring Officer of the Department of Panchayat Raj does not meet the statutory requirement as held in CWJC No. 4177 of 2011. The final order not having been issued by the state government but by the Principal Secretary is without jurisdiction. The impugned order is based on the comments furnished by the District Magistrate on the cause shown by the petitioner of which 2 he was not made aware with opportunity to defend himself. Relying on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 18905 of 2010 it is submitted that the aforesaid as also a personal hearing was mandatory. No other grounds have been urged. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has had adequate opportunity to defend himself. No justifiable explanation has been given by him for failure to implement the orders of the appellate authority. There are no disputed facts. Rule 97 (5) of the Act provides for the removal of the Serpanch for misuse of powers or misconduct in discharge of duties. Such a person removed shall not be eligible to contest elections as a Sarpanch for five years. The attempt of the petitioner to distinguish between the Collector and the District Magistrate is nothing but a quibbling of words which does not impress the Court. As understood in common parlance today they are synonyms for each other. The District Magistrate as the appellate authority on 17.2.2010 had ruled in favour of the second candidate. The petitioner is well aware and in possession of the order dated 17.2.2010 as apparent from his reply to the show cause notice given to him but has chosen to intentionally withhold this very relevant document from the Court by not annexing it to the writ petition. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the District Magistrate. He replied the same. The Monitoring Officer, Department of Panchayat Raj, then gave him a show cause to which he filed detailed reply again after consideration of which the Principal Secretary has passed the final order. The cause shown by the petitioner contends that the order of the appellate authority was not correct in law and therefore he sought to 3 advise the appellate authority that it should await the decision of this Court in the writ petition preferred by Santosh Thakur. Till the writ petition was not disposed off it may not be prudent to insist upon the petitioner to comply the order of the appellate authority. Nothing has been demonstrated before the Court that the order of the appellate authority has ever been interferred by this Court. In CWJC No. 5647 of 2010 preferred by the said Santosh Thakur, it was his contention that the matter had been remanded to the Sarpanch. The petitioner has not placed any material who passed the order of remand. If the matter had been remanded to the Sarpanch how did the Appellate Authority deal the appeal on merits and hold in favour of the Appellant. The petitioner maintains a studied silence on these aspects. The impugned order has been passed by the Principal Secretary as the head of the Department describing himself as the Principal Secretary to the state government. It is quite apparently an order on behalf of the state government under the authority of the state government requiring no interference. In the entirety of the matter, the petitioner is only himself to blame by his conduct in seeking to question the statutory appellate order rather than complying it. Saner wisdom would have advised him to comply the order subject to any further order that may be passed by the superior forum on a challenge laid out to the appellate order. The petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The allegations that he was not given a copy of the comments furnished by the District Magistrate, lack of personal hearing and a notice given by the Monitoring Officer have not caused any prejudice to him. Even if all of the same had been done, the conclusion of his conduct shall have 4 been the same. Nothing has been demonstrated if he was prejudiced and how. The Court finds no reason to interfere. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)