IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14913 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ranjay Kumar Singh S/O Late Bhola Singh R/O Vill Isttan Patti, P.S.Pali, Distt-Jehanabad, At Present Mukhiya Of The Gram Panchayat-Uttarserthu, P.S.Pali, Distt-Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna-1 2. The Commissioner Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The District Magistrate Jehanabad 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer Jehanabad 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner Jehanabad 6. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Jehanabad 7. The Executive Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme Jehanabad 8. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Organisation Jehanabad 9. The Director, Accounts Administration And Self Employment Jehanabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN) 2 20-12-2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad who has held that the petitioner, who is the Mukhiya, is responsible for implementing the schemes after a delay of 2-3 years. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report is contained in Annexure-3. This enquiry report indicates that the schemes for fixing hand-pumps were of the year 2005-06. On enquiry, which was Patna High Court CWJC No.14913 of 2010 (2) dt.20-12-2011 2 / 2 2 held in the year 2010, discloses that the hand-pumps were installed 2-3 years prior to the enquiry. This is the report with respect to both the schemes i.e. Scheme No. 15 of 2005-06 and Scheme No. 31 of 2005-06. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the enquiry, it is clear that the schemes were implemented and the villagers have stated that the schemes were implemented 2-3 years ago, which would mean that the hand-pumps were installed sometime in the year 2006-07. This is the finding in the impugned order as well. In the circumstances, it is difficult to understand how the petitioner would be held guilty for non-implementation of the schemes. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in this case. For the present, this Court does not find any merit to hold that the petitioner was guilty of non-implementation of the Scheme Nos. 15 and 31 of 2005-06. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)