IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3713 of 2007 ====================================================== Vidya Singh, son of Late Raj Bansi Singh, resident of Village – Indarwa Saki, P.O. – Thawe, P.S. & District - Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Engineering Organization, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The State Election Commission through its Secretary, Sone Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna 4. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 6. Block Development Officer, Thawe Block, Gopalganj 7. Hasnain Akhtar, son of Amir Hussan Ansari 8. Merazuddin, son of (name not known to the petitioner), Both respondent no. 7 and 8 are residents of Village – Indarwa Barem, P.O. – Sukulwa, P.S. & District – Gopalganj. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, AC to AAG 14. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 15-12-2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by a resident of the Bihar State to challenge the validity of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and for issuance of writ of mandamus / quo warranto against all those Patna High Court CWJC No.3713 of 2007 (3) dt.15-12-2011 2 / 2 2 elected Members of the Panchayats who had been elected on the strength of incorrect information provided by them. The petitioner has not set out the grounds on which he challenges the constitutional validity of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The petition is silent about the persons who are allegedly elected on the strength of wrong information. Such persons are not made party respondents either. In our opinion, the petition is as vague as vagueness can be. Such a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. Besides, pending this petition, there have been fresh elections to the Panchayats. The cause of action, therefore, shall not survive. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)