IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.823 of 2011 1. PULENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O RAMJEEVAN SINGH R/O VILL.- GARHARA, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 2. RAJAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O LATE MISHRI CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- GARHARA GOHIYARI TOLA, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI ….. Petitioners / Respondents VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI 6. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (REVENUE) BEGUSARAI 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEGHRA SUB-DIVISION, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CIRCLE/BLOCK, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 9. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR SONE BHAWAN, THIRD FLOOR, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 10. THE SECRETARY STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, SONE BHAWAN, THIRD FLOOR, BIRCHAND PATELL MARG, PATNA …. Respondents / Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : M/S Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Vinay Ranjan For the State : Mr. Narendra Kumar Jha, AC to SC XIII For the Intervenors : M/S Shivajee Pandey, Sr. Adv. Manish Kumar, Advocate ----------- 2 13.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shivajee Pandey, Senior Advocate on behalf of the persons who were intervenors before the writ Court. 2 From the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants, it is clear that there is a serious opposition to decision of the State Government declaring constitution of Nagar Parishad Bihat under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition by taking a view that the conditions imposed by Section 3 of the Act for creation of Nagar Parishad are to be taken as satisfied because a Division Bench had occasion to examine the correctness of the notification in a Public Interest Litigation bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11475 of 2009. On perusal of the original file, the Division Bench in the judgment annexed as Annexure 18 to the writ petition found that the publication was in accordance with requirement of the Act and further on perusal of the original file the Court was satisfied that 75% of the populations were non-agriculturists as per satisfaction recorded by the competent authority, the District Magistrate. We are in agreement with the views of the learned writ court that the State Government has the 3 option to exercise its power to declare areas as urban areas where the major activity of the population becomes non-agricultural. There can be no vested right in the residents to continue to be governed by the rural organizations such as Gram Panchayat and not to be governed by the Municipal Bodies like Nagar Parishad. The development of the State or the country cannot be halted because of petty interests like that to be represented through a Gram Panchayat or Nagar Parishad. The issues like figures of population and their vocations are based upon disputed facts. Moreover, every violation of Act or Rules does not create prejudice so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)