IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8561 of 2009 NAND LAL KUMAR, Son of late Balkaran Prasad, resident of village – and Post Office Chaumukha, Police Station Yogapatti, District – West Champaran. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Bihar Panchayat Raj, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Division Muzaffapur, District – Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate, West Champaran. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar, District – West Champaran. 5. The Block Development Officer, Yogapatti, District – West Champaran. 6. The Block Agriculture Officer –cum- Nodal Officer, Yogapatti, District – West Champaran. 7. The Sarpanch, Chaumukha Panchayat, Block Yogapatti, District – West Champaran. 8. Kamlakant Yadav, Son of late Gopi Yadav, resident of village Chaumukha, P.S. Yogapatti, District – West Champaran. …. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 24.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was appointed Secretary of the Gram Kutchery. His appointment has been cancelled by the District Magistrate under order bearing Memo No. 651 dated 4.7.2009 as contained in Annexure -6 to this application. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order Annexure -6 has been passed even without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and on this ground alone this order should be set aside and the Collector be asked to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner. 4. For such relief, in my opinion, petitioner should first approach the Divisional Commissioner and if he is satisfied that order dated 4.7.2009, Annexure – 6 has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, then the Divisional Commissioner shall not only stay the order dated 4.7.2009 but after - 2 - hearing the departmental representative quash the same and direct the Collector to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner. The representation in the light of this order be fled before the Divisional Commissioner within one week from today and the Divisional Commissioner should consider the matter as early as possible in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. While considering the representation the Divisional Commissioner shall be obliged to even consider the prayer for grant of interim relief. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. DKS/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)