IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13840 of 2010 1. TIRTHANAND YADAV S/O LATE MISHRILAL YADAV R/O VILL ITAHI, P.S.KURSAKANTA, DISTT-ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER PURNIA 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR ARARIA 7. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER ARARIA 8. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KURSAKANTA, DISTT-ARARIA 9. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT LAXMIPUR BLOCK, KURSAKANTA, P.S.KURSAKANTA, DISTT-ARARIA ----------- 02. 07.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the intervenor. The petitioner is stated to be the Mukhiya of Gram panchayat Laxmipur, Block- Kursakanta, District- Araria, aggrieved by the order passed under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, unseating him from the post. Learned counsel submits that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, which was replied too. The comments of the District Magistrate were then called for on the cause shown by the petitioner. What the District Magistrate had to say on the cause shown by the petitioner was not made known to the petitioner and he had no opportunity to meet the same. He has also been denied any 2 personal hearing in the matter. The impugned order takes into consideration and relies upon the comments of the District Magistrate to hold that the cause shown by the petitioner was not acceptable. The submission is that the petitioner has been condemned on evidence and materials collected behind his back without an opportunity to him to rebutt the same. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18905 of 2010. Learned counsel for the State and the intervenor find it difficult to persuade the Court to take different view of the matter in light of the discussion contained in C.W.J.C. No. 18905 of 2010. For like reasons as discussed in C.W.J.C. No. 18905 of 2010, the impugned order dated 30.7.2010 is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside with like observations to the State for proceeding afresh, if so advised. The writ application stands allowed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)