IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1723 of 2010 1. MAHESH RAM S/O RAMESHWAR RAM R/O VILL.- MODANGANJ, P.S.- GHOSHI, DISTT.- JEHANABAD, AT PRESENT ELECTED MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI, MODANGANJ, DISTT.- JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, JEHANABAD 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MODANGANJ BLOCK, DISTT.- JEHANABAD 5. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER-CUM-AGENCY, MODANGANJ BLOCK, DISTT.- JEHANABAD 6. RAJIV SHARMA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER PRAMUKH, PANCHAYAT SAMITI- MODANGANJ, DISTT.- JEHANABAD 7. SUNIL KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER ASSISTANT- MODANGANJ BLOCK, DISTT.- JEHANABAD Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. ----------- 3/ 15/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and respondent Nos.6 and 7. While the petitioner is stated to be an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti, Modanganj, District- Jehanabad, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are stated to be the Pramukh and the Assistant. The controversy relates to what the petitioner alleges an illegal construction of a building for medical treatment of animals at village-Charui, Block- Modanganj, District- Jehanabad. It is not in controversy that during the pendency of the writ application the construction has been completed in March, 2010 itself. While the petitioner alleges that the construction has been made at the present location without any resolution of the Panchayat Samiti, the State Authorities and private respondents 6 and 7 assert that the construction has been located at a place approved by the 2 Panchayat Samiti. Arguments, counter arguments, allegations and counter allegations have been made with regard to what may have been considered by the Panchayat Samiti, in what manner it was considered by the Panchayat Samiti and to what extent it may have been considered by the Panchayat Samiti. At the fulcrum of the entire controversy are the decisions of the Panchayat Samiti which is best known to the members of the Panchayat Samiti itself. The Panchayat system, grassroots democracy, is a mandate of the Constitution. The Court need not go into that aspect further except to hold that grassroots democracy has to be allowed to function with full force and effect and shall not be interfered with by this Court lightly. Let the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jehanabad ensure that the aspect of the construction of the building for medical treatment of animals as discussed in the present order is placed before the Panchayat Samiti which shall examine for itself whether it had given any approval. If it had, for what location. It shall be the discretion of the Panchayat Samiti to decide/ratify/regularise what has to be done with the construction made, if it has 3 been made without its resolution or at a place contrary to its resolution. The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the construction made which naturally has to be left to the best wisdom of the members of the Panchayat Samiti. The writ application is disposed in the aforesaid terms to be complied with within a maximum period of one month from the date of constitution of the new Panchayat Samiti after the present Panchayat Elections are over. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)