IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11092 of 2009 KRISHNA KANT MISHRA, son of Uma Shankar Mishra, resident of village Manguraha, PS Govindganj, District East Champaran Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, at Patna 3. The Officer on Special Duty, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, at Patna 4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari 5. The Chief Executive Officer-cum- Deputy Development Commissioner, East Champaran at Motihari 6. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, East Champaran at Motihari 7. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development (NRRWP/NAREGA Division), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 8. The Director, NAREGA Division, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 9. The Joint Secretary, NAREGA Division, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 10. The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, East Champaran at Motihari. ----------- 2 31-08-2009 Heard the parties. Petitioner has claimed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that he is an elected member of Zila Parishad, Motihari and interested in the welfare schemes for the benefit of general public. In public interest, he wants a direction upon respondent no.2, the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, that appropriate policy decision be taken so that the works which have been earlier undertaken under SRGY but later on merged under NAREGA be completed and they should not suffer for want of funds. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no averment that writ petitioner has ever approached respondent no.2, however, the writ petition may be disposed of by giving 2 liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation in the matter. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty that petitioner may file a detailed representation containing remedial suggestions also which may be considered by respondent no.2 in accordance with law expeditiously. It is expected that a brief reply of the decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner at an early date preferably within four weeks. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)