IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1416 of 2010 Subodh Kumar s/o Sri Sheela Chandra Das, resident of Par Nawada, Dobhrapar, P.S. and District – Nawada … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through its Secretary, New Delhi 2. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, New Secretariat, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Nawada 4. Chairman, District Board, Nawada 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Nawada 6. Nagar Parishad, Nawada 7. Chief Councilor, Nagar Parishad, Nawada 8. Deputy Chief Councilor, Nagar Parishad, Nawada 9. Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Nawada … Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, Asstt. Counsel to SC XIX For the Union of India: Mr. Raghib Ahsan, ASG --- 2 28/1/2010 Heard Mr. Ramesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner, a member of the Nagar Parishad, Nawada, describing himself as pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition contending, inter alia, that the guidelines issued by the State Government vide Annexure -1 have been given indecent burial by 2 the Nagar Parishad, as a consequence of which the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people are not getting the benefit of “Pichhara Kshetra Anudan Nidhi Karyakram Sambandhi Dishanirdesh”. On a scrutiny of the averments in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner, a Ward Councilor, has put forth his protest about the manner in which the Parishad was functioning but his voice did not gain ground. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Municipalities and Parishads are bound to be guided by the „Yojna‟ formulated by the State Government. In course of hearing, we have been apprised that the petitioner has brought it to the notice of the State Government by way of a representation contained in Annexure -10. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the competent authority of the State Government shall look into the representation as contained in Annexure 10 in the backdrop of the guidelines and take appropriate action. We may hasten to add that when the State Government has framed a set of guidelines it is 3 obligatory on its part to see that the same is followed in appropriate manner and not in breach. This Court hopes and trusts that the State Government shall take necessary action as required in law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)