CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5921 OF 1995 1. Kedar Prasad Singh, son of late Ragho Singh, resident of village belchhi, P.S. karandey District – Lakhisarai, at present Mukhiya of the Belchhi Gram Panchayat. 2. Dayal Sharan Singh, son of Shri Jai Narayan Prasad Singh, resident of village Karandey, P.S. karandey, District – Lakhisarai, Ex-Chairman, L.D.S. (Land Development Bank), Halsi Block, District – Lakhisarai. ------------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Munger. 5. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 6. The Block Development Officer, Halsi,P.S. Halsi, District – Lakhisarai. 7. The Block Development Officer, Chebara, P.S. – Chebara, District – Shaikhpura. ------------------ Respondents. For The Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Wadood, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate For The Respondent : (GA) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ****************** A. K. Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners approached the High Court way back in the year 1995 when vide notification dated 29.07.1994, two panchayats namely Belchi and Carandey Gram Panchayat were included in the Chebara Block, now in the district of Sheikhpura. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that not only was the decision taken for oblique reasons but even the basic requirements and provisions of - 2 - Section 3 of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act 1961, as it then occupied the field was violated. The Court is not willing to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. The reason for not doing so is that almost 14 years have gone past since the reconstitution of the Block. The reconstitution has come to be the settled position over many these years and vested interests and rights must have been created due to the impugned notification over a decade and a half. Even otherwise, in the opinion of the Court such issues are better decided at the administrative level, if not through a political action which may be launched by the people affected in this regard. The writ application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners that they may knock at the door of either the government by moving the Secretary or their political representative of the area for removing the inconvenience which have been caused to the people by such notification contained in Annexure – 2. The writ application stands disposed of with the above liberty. Patna High Court, The 10th Day of December,2008 NAFR/AFR, Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)