IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.294 of 2011 ANIL ROY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 02. 11.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. The Court does not consider the same necessary in view of the fact that the legal aspect of the matter stands decided by more than one order of this Court. The petitioner is stated to be a Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Chandi. He is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2010 removing him from the post of Mukhiya passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar. It is his case that a show case was given to him on 5.6.2007 with regard to certain appointments of Anganwari Sewika and Sahiyaka. The appointment came to be cancelled by the District Magistrate on 8.1.2008. The same persons have then been appointed in the fresh selection process on 20.1.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the very specific pleading in paragraph-20 of the writ application that the comments furnished by the District Magistrate on the 2 cause shown by the petitioner was not made available to him and he had no opportunity to meet or rebutt the same. The final order takes into consideration the comments of the District Magistrate on the cause shown by the petitioner to reject the letter. The submission therefore is that he has been condemned on basis of evidence collected behind his back in violation of principles of natural justice. In fairness to the respondents when they have had no opportunity to file a counter affidavit, but the issues stand decided by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 33370 of 2010 relied upon by the petitioner as also by another order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18905 of 2010, the application is disposed off with directions to the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj to grant a fresh hearing to the petitioner limited to the issues as discussed in the present order and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Keeping in mind that an order under Section 18 (5) of the Panchyati Raj Act, has penal consequences upon the petitioner, when he stand debarred from contesting for the post for next five years and the impounding Elections proposed to be notified on 21st February, 2011 so that the 3 petitioner is not left remediless. This Court is coming across several orders passed under Section 18 (5) of the Panchyati Raj Act suffering from similar errors. The Court expects the Principal Secretary, Panchyati Raj to re-examine matters and pass fresh appropriate orders without insisting on an individual petitioner to having obtain individual orders from the Court when the issue on law stands decided by the Court. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)