Patna High Court
Brij Nandan @ Siya Ram Yadav And Anr vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 April, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 546 of 2017
======================================================
1. Brij Nandan @ Siya Ram Yadav Son of Late Pitambar Yadav,
2. Bechan Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Son of Late Ram Kripal Singh,
Both are residents of Village- Pakahi Police Station- Kusheshwar
Asthan, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati
1.
Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga.
4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
5. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Darbhanga.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Birol District- Darbhanga.
7. The Circle Officer Kusheshwar Asthan, Police Station Kusheshwar Asthan,
District- Darbhanga.
8. The Block Development Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan Police Station
Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga
9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayati Raj Pakahi Jhajhara Police Station
Kusheshwar Asthan District Darbhanga
10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Pakahi Jhajhara Police
Station Kusheshwar Asthan District Darbhanga.
11. The Engineer in Chief Department of Yojna and Development, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
12. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Work
Division 2 Benipur, P.S.- Benipur, District-Darbhanga.
13. Head Master Middle School Jhajhara Police Station Kusheshwar Asthan
District Darbhanga.
14. Sri Gauri Shankar Yadav, Son of Buchi Yadav, Resident of Village-
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
2/38
Pakahawa, Police Station- Kusheshwar Asthan District Darbhanga
Sanwedak (Contractor) for Construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at
Pakahi Jhajhara.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta, GP-10
Mr. Virendra Kuar, AC to GP-10
For the Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Rantan Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 14 : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 07-04-2025
The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside
the decision of Aam Sabha dated 02.08.2016, issued under the
signature of the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Pakahi-
Jhajhara, whereby and whereunder the land selected earlier for
construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan has been cancelled
and a decision has been taken unanimously to construct
Panchyat Sarkar Bhawan at land situated at Mauza-Jhajhara,
P.S. No. 261, appertaining to Khata No. 2 (old), Khesra No. 885
(old), corresponding to Khata No. 346 (new), Khesra No. 1019
(new) [hereinafter referred to as "Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No.
1019"], ad-measuring 1 acre. The petitioners have further
prayed for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2016, issued by
the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, whereby and whereunder he
has given approval for construction of Panchayat Sarkar
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
3/38
Bhawan at land situated at Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019, ad-
measuring 1 acre, instead of the previous selected land situated
at Mauza-Pakahi, appertaining to Khata No. 718, Khesra No.
1204 [hereinafter referred to as "Mauza- Pakahi, Plot No.
1204"]. Lastly, the petitioners have prayed for directing the
Respondents to construct Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the land
situated at Mauza-Pakahi, appertaining to Khata No. 718,
Khesra No. 1204.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners are
that there are six panchayats in Cluster No. 51 including Pakahi
Jhajhara Gram Panchayat. The then Mukhiya of Pakahi Jhajhara
Panchayat, vide application dated 21.9.2012 had requested the
concerned Circle Officer to grant approval for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the land situated at Mauza Pakahi,
appertaining to Khata No. 718, Khesra No. 1204, ad-measuring
4 acres 37 decimals. Thereafter, the Anchal Amin had measured
the land on 15.10.2012 and submitted a report along with the
trace map as also had demarcated the land for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. The Block Development Officer and
Circle Officer had then inspected the land on 6.11.2012 and had
submitted a report in the prescribed format. The Circle Officer,
Kusheshwar Asthan i.e. the Respondent No. 7 had intimated the
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
4/38
factual aspect of the matter pertaining to construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan to the District Panchayati Raj Officer,
Darbhanga i.e. the Respondent No. 5, vide letter dt. 28.11.2012.
The respondents had, after considering the entire facts and
circumstances, accorded sanction for construction of Panchayat
Sarkat Bhawan at Mauja-Pakahi and then the Executive
Engineer, Department of Yojna and Development, Government
of Bihar, had issued tender notice No. 2/14-15 for five works
including construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Pakahi at
an estimated cost of Rs. 95,38,455/- and the time prescribed for
completion of work was twelve months. Only one person,
namely Gauri Shankar Yadav i.e. the Respondent No. 14 had
submitted his bid, hence he was declared to be the successful
bidder. Nonetheless, he delayed the construction of the aforesaid
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan since the Ex-Mukhiya and the
persons having vested interest were trying to change the site of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan.
3. The Respondent Engineer-in-Chief, Local Area Engineering
Organization, Department of Yojna and Development,
Government of Bihar, had then granted approval for awarding
tender to Sri Gauri Shankar Yadav for construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan at Kusheshwar Asthan, Pakahi-Jhajhara,
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
5/38
Darbhanga, vide letter dated 11.05.2016. However, in the
meantime, the newly elected Mukhiya had issued a letter,
containing the unanimous decision of the Aam Sabha dated
02.08.2016
, whereby and whereunder the land selected earlier
for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was cancelled and
a decision was taken to construct the same at the land situated at
Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019, ad-measuring 1 acre. At this
juncture, it has been pointed out that the said Plot No. 1019
belongs to the Middle School, Jhajhara, nonetheless the Circle
Officer had recommended the matter to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Biraul, who in turn vide letter dated 15.09.2016 had
made recommendation for change of the site chosen earlier for
construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan to the Respondent
No. 5, subject to the Education Department having no objection
and it was stated therein that the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan can
be constructed at Plot No. 1019. The District Magistrate,
Dharbhanga had then, vide order dated 06.12.2016 granted
approval for construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the
land situated at Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019, ad-measuring 1
acre. The petitioners and others had then objected to the said
decision dated 6.12.2016, taken by the District Magistrate,
Darbhanga.
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
6/38
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the earlier land situated at Mauja-Pakahi,
appertaining to Plot No. 1204, where Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan
was originally slated to be constructed is a big area, which
would suffice the space required for construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan, whereas the new land appertaining to Plot No.
1019 is a small plot not suitable for construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan and moreover, Plot No. 1019 is also situated
near the tola of the schedule caste people apart from the fact that
the same is much lower than the attached road, which would
require filling of soil causing unnecessary expenditure. It is also
submitted that it has been wrongly stated that the aforesaid Plot
No. 1204 is having water logging problem whereas the fact is
that the same is a normal land suitable for habitation. It is also
submitted that the new land, appertaining to Plot No. 1019
belongs to a school and no permission has been taken from the
Education Department, as such the action of the Respondents to
construct Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Plot No. 1019 is illegal.
It is also submitted that only after the State-Respondents had
become fully satisfied that the earlier selected Plot No. 1204 is
suitable for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, approval
was granted, estimate was prepared, tender was floated
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
7/38
and finally the tender was also awarded to the Respondent No.
14 for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Khesra No.
1204, nonetheless persons having vested interest have changed
the site of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan to another land
appertaining to Plot No. 1019 illegally and with oblique
motives. It is stated that if Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is
constructed at Plot No. 1019, which is the land of middle school
Jhajhara and is a ditch type of land attached to the school,
political activities taking place at the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan
would also adversely affect the students of the school and the
educational fabric, hence construction of Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan near a school is not justified.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also
referred to a letter dated 23.01.2017, written by the Chief
Engineer, Local Area Engineer Organization, Planning and
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to the
Superintending Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization,
Work Circle, Darbhanga, instructing him to enquire into the
allegation of change of site of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan to be
constructed at Plot No. 1204 and till he had directed to stop the
construction work. It is also submitted that as per the guidelines,
the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan should be situated at the
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
8/38
headquarter village of the Gram Panchayat in question. It is
stated that village Pakahi is headquarter of Pakahi Jhajhara
Panchayat and about 70% voter of Pakahi Jhajhari Panchayat
are from Pakahi village, which is having complete road
connectivity. It is submitted that only after the aforesaid Plot
No. 1204 was found suitable in all respect by the Circle Officer
and the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, approval was granted
for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the said plot
No. 1204, situated at Mauza-Pakahi, however, after the new
Mukhiya was selected, he has got the site changed to Plot No.
1019 with oblique motives. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners has next submitted that the Deputy Secretary,
Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, vide letter
dated 27.2.2012, had directed the District Magistrates to furnish
a certificate that the proposed land for construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan is situated at Panchayat Headquarter, whereafter
the Additional Collector, Darbhanga, vide letter dated
25.6.2012, had directed all the Circle Officers to send the
requisite certificate, as aforesaid and in pursuance thereof, the
Circle Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan, vide letter dated 4.10.2012,
had informed the Additional Collector, Darbhanga that the
proposed land for Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan bearing Khata No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
9/38
718, Khesra No. 1204, is situated at Panchayat Headquarter.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has next
referred to the guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide
letter dated 21.08.2015 to all the District Magistrates of the
State of Bihar pertaining to construction of Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan, to submit that the same categorically postulates that
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan has to be invariably constructed at
the headquarter village of the Gram Panchayat in question as per
the decision of the Cabinet of the State of Bihar and any
decision to construct Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan contrary to the
same is illegal and cannot be validated. In fact, by the said letter
dated 21.08.2015, all the District Magistrates of the State of
Bihar were directed to review the status of all the Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawans, which are being constructed and get reassured
that the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawans are being constructed and
have been constructed at the headquarter village of the
concerned Gram Panchayat. In the said letter dated 21.08.2015,
it has also been stated that where Panchayat Sarkar Bhawans are
being constructed in some other village other than the
headquarter village, contrary to the Government orders, the
construction work should be suspended immediately and a
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
10/38
report should be sent to the Panchayati Raj Department as to
how such construction is being done.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, by referring
to the aforesaid guidelines contained in letter dated 21.08.2015,
has submitted that the Respondent-District Magistrate,
Darbhanga has acted contrary to the said guidelines and though
village Pakahi is the headquarters of Gram Panchayat Raj
Pakahi-Jhajhara, where land was originally selected for
construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, nonetheless he
has illegally accorded approval to change of site for
construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, to a land situated
at Mauza-Jhajhara, appertaining to Plot No. 1019 and the work
of construction of the said Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is going on
illegally. In fact, the Respondent Engineer-in-Chief had, vide
letter dated 3.3.2017 intimated the Superintending Engineer,
Local Area Engineering Organization, Work Circle Darbhanga
about illegal construction of Panchayat Sakar Bhawan at
Jhajhara in place of Pakahi, however, to no avail. Thus, it is the
submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that
the entire action of the State Respondents in changing the site
for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan from Mauza-
Pakahi to Mauza-Jhajhara is illegal and contrary to the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
11/38
guidelines, contained in letter dated 21.8.2015, issued by the
Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, hence, the decision of the Aam Sabha dated
02.08.2016 as also the order dated 06.12.2016, passed by the
District Magistrate, Darbhanga, are fit to be set aside.
8. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Respondents-
State has raised the issue of maintainability of the present writ
petition, inasmuch as neither the petitioners have any locus nor
any of their legal right has been infringed, thus it is submitted
that on this ground alone, the present writ petition is fit to be
dismissed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State
has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the
present case that the Mukhiyas of different village Panchayats of
Kusheshwar Asthan Block filed objection petitions before the
Circle Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan and the District Panchayat
Raj Officer, Darbhanga in connection with the site selected
earlier for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan of Gram
Panchayat Raj, Pakahi-Jhajhara under Block Kusheshwar Asthan
in the district of Darbhanga, stating therein that the land situated at
Mauza-Pakahi Plot No. 1204 is not suitable for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan since the same is a low land, there is
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
12/38
water logging problem and there is communication problem.
Thereafter, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Darbhanga, vide
letter dated 30.5.2015, had asked the Circle Officer, Kusheshwar
Asthan to make an enquiry, whereafter the Circle Officer,
Kusheshwar Asthan, had submitted his enquiry report, vide
letter dated 22.6.2015, stating therein that it has been pointed
out by the Mukhiyas of Panchayat Chigri, Simraha, Harauli and
Gothani that the selected land is not suitable inasmuch as the
same is part of a river where water logging is prevalent for
several days, hence the Mukhiyas of Gram Panchayat Chigri,
Simraha and other villages have suggested an alternative land
for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan i.e. the land
situated at Mauza-Jhajhara, Thana No. 261, Plot No. 1019 and
the principal of the school in question as also the Chairman,
Secretary and five members of the School Management
Committee have given their no objection for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the said land.
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
Respondent-State that thereafter, another representation
annexing the proceedings of the Aam Sabha dated 02.08.2016
was filed before the Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul,
stating therein that the place selected earlier for construction of
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
13/38
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan has been cancelled by the decision
taken in the Aam Sabha held on 02.08.2016 and a new site,
which is more suitable, has been selected at Mauza-Jhajhara,
Plot No. 1019. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul,
vide letter dated 27.08.2016, asked the Circle Officer,
Kusheshwar Asthan to enquire into the matter and submit his
report, which was submitted by the said Circle Officer on
07.09.2016, wherein it has been stated that the earlier land
selected for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan i.e. the
one situated at Mauza-Pakahi, Plot No. 1204 is an Anabad Bihar
Sarkar Land, Type-Bandh where 20-25 families of Dalit
community are residing as also the said land is far away from
the main road. It has also been stated in the said report that on
account of protest by the people of Dalit community, the present
Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Pakahi-Jhajhara had organized
an Aam Sabha on 02.08.2016, wherein proposal was passed
regarding cancellation of the earlier selected land and new land,
situated at Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019, ad-measuring 1 acre,
was selected for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan,
which at the moment is recorded in the survey khatiyan in the
name of Education Department, Bihar Sarkar, Purushotam
Middle School, Jhajhara and its type has been mentioned as
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
14/38
Ghanhar-II apart from the said land being adjacent to road and
being suitable for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. It
is further submitted that the land selected earlier, i.e the one
situated at Mauza- Pakahi, Plot No. 1204 is recorded in the
revisional survey khatiyan as Kisma-Bandh, which is far away
from the main road. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-
State has next submitted that the said Plot No. 1204 is in the
occupation of Dalit community, who are also objecting to their
removal, hence the said place is not suitable for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the
earlier selected site has been cancelled.
11. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
Respondent-State that the new proposed site is adjacent to the
main Road No. 81, which passes through Satighat to Jhajhra and
is comparatively a much better site than the earlier selected
place, for which recommendation has been submitted by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga, vide letter dated
15.09.2016, to construct the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the
new proposed Plot No. 1019. Even the District Magistrate,
Darbhanga, vide letter dated 06.12.2016, has approved the
construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan of village Panchayat
Pakahi-Jhajhara at the new site, whereafter substantial
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
15/38
construction work has also been completed. Thus, in nutshell it
is submitted that the report submitted by the Circle Officer,
Kusheshwar Asthan and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul, vide
letters dated 07.09.2016 and 15.09.2016 respectively, would
show that the earlier selected place is not proper and out of
reach of the common people as also is contrary to the aims and
objects of the Government directions / guidelines. Thus, it is
submitted that the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
12. This Court finds that a counter affidavit has been filed by
the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat Pakahi-Jhajhara, elected in
the year June 2016, who is successor of the Ex-Mukhiya Rajeev
Singh, wherein it has been stated that the present writ petition is
not maintainable at the instance of the writ petitioners, who are
petty contractor and land brokers and have been set up by the
Ex-Mukhiya, Rajeev Singh of village Pakahi to engage in proxy
litigation with a view to deprive the residents of the benefit of
Panchyat Sarkar Bhawan. It is also submitted that Gram
Panchayat Pakahi-Jhajhara comprises of six villages, namely
Jhajhara, Pakahi, Morkahi, Bahorba, Dubha and Kubotan,
however, there is no Gram Panchayat Bhawan / Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan in the said Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan has been proposed for a cluster of
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
16/38
seven Gram Panchayats, namely, Pakahi Jhajhara, Chigari
Simraha, Bargaon, Gothani, Dinmo, Barna and Harauli, hence,
the proposed Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is not only for Gram
Panchyat Pakahi-Jhajhara but is also meant for the said seven
Gram Panchyats. It is averred that though the guidelines provide
for construction of Gram Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the Gram
Panchayat headquarter of any of the concerned Gram Panchayat
where suitable land is available, however as far as Pakahi-
Jhajhara Gram Panchayat is concerned, Mauza-Pakahi is not the
headquarter of the said Gram Panchayat.
13. In fact, the Ex-Mukhiya Sri Rajeev Singh on his own,
without the decision of the Aam Sabh of the Gram Panchayat
and without the consent of the other six Gram Panchayats had
proposed for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the
land situated at Mauza Pakahi, Plot No. 1204, recorded in the
name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar, Gair Majarua Khas, nature-
bandh. Admittedly, the said land is engulfed with the problem of
water logging, hence the said land is not suitable. Nonetheless,
the Ex-Mukhiya got the proposal of construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan at Plot No. 1204, Mauza-Pakahi approved,
illegally by misleading the authorities. More than 25 families
belonging to Dalit and Maha Dalit communities are settled over
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
17/38
the said land since more than 25-30 years and parcha of
settlement have also been issued to some of them, who upon
coming to know about the proposal of construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan over the said land, had submitted representation
on 22.1.2015 before the Collector, Darbhanga. Even the
Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Chigari Simraha, Gothani,
Barana Dinmo and Harauli had objected to the construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at village Pakahi, vide representation
dt. 15.06.2015.
14. Accordingly, the said Mukhiya had also submitted a
representation before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga,
on 13.7.2015, apart from submitting representation before the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul on 27.8.2016, who had called for
a report from the Circle Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan, vide letter
dated 27.8.2016, whereafter the Circle Officer, Kusheshwar
Asthan had got the matter enquired and submitted his report to
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul on 07.09.2016, as has already
been discussed herein above in the preceding paragraphs. In the
meantime, Aam Sabha was held on 02.08.2016 and resolution
was passed to the effect that Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan should
be constructed at Plot No. 1019, situated at village Jhajhara. Not
only the Mukhiyas of the rest of the Gram Panchayats but also
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
18/38
the school in question has given no objection. Thereafter, the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul submitted his report to the
District Magistrate, vide letter dated 15.09.2016, recommending
for allowing construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Plot
No. 1019, situated at village Jhajhara, leading to approval of the
said proposal by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, vide order
dated 06.12.2016. Lastly, it is submitted that 80% of the work of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan has been completed, inasmuch as the
ground floor is entirely complete as also the first floor of the
Panchyat Sarkar Bhawan upto the roof level has stood
completed, hence grave prejudice would be caused apart from
loss being caused to the exchequer of the State Government, in
case construction of the said Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is
shelved.
15. As far as the Respondent No. 12 i.e. the Executive
Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Government of
Bihar is concerned, a counter affidavit has been filed on his
behalf wherein it has been stated that the site for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan has been changed by the Aam Sabha,
which has been duly approved by the competent authority,
considering the fact that at the earlier selected site, 20-25
Mahadalit families are residing, who would have to be uprooted
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
19/38
as also the nature of land is Bandh, which remains water logged
and is also far away from the road, thus a new site was selected
by the Aam Sabha, which is situated adjacent to the main road
No. 81 and is surrounded by post office, health center, high
school, raised platform and market.
16. The learned counsel for the private Respondent No. 14
has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the
present case that the Respondent No. 14 is not concerned with
the allegations and counter allegations being made in between
the petitioners and the newly elected Mukhiya or for that matter
with the decision of the Aam Sabha of the Gram Panchayat and
he is the contractor who has been awarded the project of
construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, which was being
constructed by him at the selected site, situated at Mauza-
Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019, as per the approval granted by the
District Magistrate, Darbhanga, vide order dated 06.12.2016. It
is submitted that the work for construction of the aforesaid
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was allotted to the Respondent No.
14, vide letter dated 16.7.2016, issued by the Superintending
Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Benipur,
Darbhanga and he was asked to complete the work within one
year of the date of starting the work, vide letter dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
20/38
14.12.2016, issued by the Executive Engineer, LAEO, Work
Division-II, Benipur, Darbhanga. It is next submitted that the
Respondent No. 14 has already completed the structure of
ground floor of the said Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan as also the
brick work of first floor up to the lintel level has also been
completed, however thereafter work has been stopped on
account of the interim order passed by this Court. It has also
been stated that though the Respondent No. 14 has already
completed more than 60-65% of the contract work but has
received payment of only Rs. 37,07,407/-, which is merely 40%
of the work done by the Respondent No. 14. It is thus submitted
that huge public money will be wasted if the work is delayed or
the construction site is changed at such a belated stage and
moreover, completion of the construction work of the said
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is in the interest of all concerned. It is
contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in
the present form as it is not a public interest litigation and
moreover, no personal injury has been caused to the writ
petitioners, thus they do not have any locus standi to file the
present case.
17. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
present Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Pakahi-Jhajhara,
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
21/38
elected in the year, 2021 has referred to the counter affidavit
filed in the present case and has reiterated the averments made
by the petitioners in the writ petition and supplementary
affidavits filed in the present case. It has been further stated that
the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Mauza-Pakahi
was sanctioned by the then District Magistrate, Darbhanga, vide
memo dated 22.2.2013, however by the time, the construction
work could start, the newly elected Mukhiya, in collusion with
the officials, got the site changed from Mauza-Pakahi to Mauza-
Jhajhara, which has now been approved illegally by an order
dated 06.12.2016, issued by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the voluminous pleadings made by the parties in the
present case. At the outset, it would be relevant to consider the
issue of maintainability of the present writ petition in view of
the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents, as
aforesaid to the effect that since no personal injury has been
caused to the writ petitioners, they do not have any locus to file
the present writ petition. This Court finds that it is a well-settled
law that a person who raises a grievance, much show as to how
he has suffered legal injury and in absence thereof, a stranger
having no right whatsoever cannot be permitted to invoke the
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
22/38
writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. A legal right means an entitlement arising
out of legal rules meaning thereby that it can be said to be an
advantage or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of
law. Thus, existence of legal right of a person, who complains of
infraction of such right is the foundation for exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is equally a well-settled law that a
person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is
not personally affected by the impugned order or his
fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially
embodied nor is there any eminent danger of such rights being
embodied. Thus, the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is based on the existence of a right in favor of person
invoking the jurisdiction and the exception to the general rule is
only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas
corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest, which is not
the case herein. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to a
judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Ayaaubkhan @ Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra &
Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, paragraphs no. 9 to 17
whereof are reproduced herein below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
23/38“9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot
be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he
satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the
category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has
suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the
act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable
either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal
right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that
there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of
the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially
enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis
of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of
course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a
public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a
person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that
he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The
existence of such right is a condition precedent for
invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in
the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In
fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the
exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal
right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of
the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such
right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the
same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta
[1951 SCC 1024], Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR
1954 SC 728], Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v.
State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044], Rajendra Singh v.
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
24/38
State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460] and Tamilnad
Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C.
Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784] .
10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of
legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a
benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The
expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a
person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary
injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be
one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or
jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home
Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387] and State
of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592].
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of
Mumbai [(2008) 5 SCC 217], a similar view was taken by
this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is
not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to
be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the
selection of other persons.
12. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. [(2011) 7 SCC
616], this Court held: (SCC pp. 628-29, para 25)
“25. … The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an
elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined
within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive
definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse,
variable factors such as the content and intent of the
statute of which the contravention is alleged, the
specific circumstances of the case, the nature and
extent of the complainant’s interest and the nature
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
25/38
and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by
the complainant.”
13. This Court, even as regards the filing of a habeas
corpus petition, has explained that the expression “next
friend” means a person who is not a total stranger. Such
a petition cannot be filed by one who is a complete
stranger to the person who is in alleged illegal custody.
[Vide Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India [1950
SCC 833 : AIR 1951 SC 41], Sunil Batra (2) v. Delhi
Admn. [(1980) 3 SCC 488], Nilima Priyadarshini v. State
of Bihar [1987 Supp SCC 732], Simranjit Singh Mann v.
Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 653], Karamjeet Singh v.
Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 666] and Kishore Samrite
v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 398]
14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts
against entertaining public interest litigation filed by
unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate
to abuse the process of court. The right of effective access
to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights
regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which
purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a
workable remedy within the framework of the judicial
system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is
invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that
there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The
court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is
no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily
meddlesome bystanders are not granted a visa”. Many
societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
26/38
grievances, and the court should make an earnest
endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective
purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide P.S.R.
Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC 141],
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114], State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC
402] & Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 69].
15. Even as regards the filing of a public interest
litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a
course of action is not permissible so far as service
matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273], Dattaraj Nathuji
Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590] and
Neetu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614].
16. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [(2002) 1 SCC
33], this Court considered a similar issue and observed
as under: (SCC p. 54, para 38)
“38. There is no dispute regarding the legal
proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be enforced only by an
aggrieved person except in the case where the writ
prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto.
Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a
writ petition in public interest. The existence of the
legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have
been violated is the foundation for invoking the
jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid
article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding
the locus standi of a person to reach the court has
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
27/38
undergone a sea change with the development of
constitutional law in our country and the
constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal
approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the
claim of a litigant merely on hypertechnical grounds.
… In other words, if the person is found to be not
merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any
post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the
ground of his not having the locus standi.”
17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be
summarised to the effect that a person who raises a
grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury.
Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any
post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the
affairs of others.”
19. It would also be gainful to refer to yet another judgment,
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinoy
Kumar vs. The State of U.P. & Others, reported in (2001) 4
SCC 734, paragraph No. 2 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
“2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus
standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected
by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have
neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there
any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his
acquired interests have been violated ignoring the
applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
28/38of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to
the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied
for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in
public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court
confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where
legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular
person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to
entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the
instance of third party where there is an effective legal
aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even
in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the
writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when
it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal
burden is threatened and such person or determined class
of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or
disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position, unable to approach the court for relief.”
20. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the cases of Ayaaubkhan @ Noorkhan Pathan (supra)
and Vinoy Kumar (supra), apart from the fact that the
petitioners have nowhere in the writ petition made any
statement as to how they have been personally effected by the
impugned order dated 6.12.2016 or as to what personal/legal
injury has been caused to them and moreover, there is complete
absence of any pleading in the writ petition with regard to
existence of any legal right, which has been violated, this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
29/38
finds that the present writ petition is not maintainable at the
behest of the writ petitioners, hence, is liable to be dismissed on
this ground alone.
21. Now coming to the merits of the case, this Court finds
that the earlier Mukhiya had recommended for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at a land situated at Mauza- Pakahi,
Plot No. 1204, which was though approved, however the tender
could only be awarded to the Respondent No. 14 by the Chief
Engineer on 11.05.2016, nonetheless in the meantime time, i.e
in the month of June, 2016 new Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat
Raj Pakahi-Jhajhara was elected. It is apparent from the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondent-
State as also from the counter affidavit filed by the Mukhiya,
who had occupied the office of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj
Pakahi-Jhajhara in the month of June, 2016 that the earlier land
selected for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at
Mauza-Pakahi is Anabad Bihar Sarkar land, type (kism)-Bandh,
which is a way/part of a river and remains water logged for most
part of the year as also is situated far away from the main road,
apart from more than 20-25 Dalit families residing over the said
land since a long time. In such view of the matter, the new
Mukhiya had objected to construction of Panchayat Sarkar
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
30/38
Bhawan at village Pakahi. The Gram Panchayat Raj Pakahi
Jhajhara is a cluster of six villages, namely Jhajhara, Pakahi,
Morkahi, Bahorba, Dubha and Kubotan. In fact, the Mukhiya of
all the said villages had objected to construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan at Mauza-Pakahi by filing their objections on
15.6.2015, whereafter the then Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj
Pakahi-Jhajhara had also filed his separate objection on
13.07.2015, before the Divisional Commissioner as also before
the Circle Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul,
whereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul, vide letter dated
27.08.2016 had called for a report from the Circle Officer,
Kusheshwar Asthan, who had in turn submitted his enquiry
report dated 07.09.2016, finding the land situated at Mauza-
Pakahi, Plot No. 1204 to be Anabad Bihar Sarkar, Type-Bandh,
which remains water logged for considerable time, is situated
away from the main road and 20-25 Dalit families are residing
there whereas he had found the new proposed land situated at
Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019 to be more suitable, being near
the road.
22. In the meantime, the Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat Raj
Pakahi-Jhajhara was held on 02.08.2016 and a unanimous
resolution was passed to cancel the earlier land selected for
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
31/38
construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, situated at Mauza-
Pakahi, Plot No. 1204 and instead it was decided to construct
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Mauza-Jhajhara, appertaining to
Plot No. 1019 (new). Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Biraul had submitted his detailed report dated 15.09.2016 before
the District Magistrate, Darbhanga and the Respondent No. 5,
stating therein that the earlier land selected for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Mauza-Pakahi is Anabad Bihar
Sarkar land, Type-Bandh where 20-25 Dalit / Mahadalit families
are residing by constructing their houses and the said land is far
away from the main road as also the Dalit families have raised
objections, leading to passing of a unanimous resolution by the
Aam Sabha of the Gram Panchayat Raj Pakahi-Jhajhara
whereby and whereunder, the land selected earlier, i.e the one
situated at Mauza-Pakahi has been cancelled and instead a
decision has been taken to construct Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan
at the land situated at Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019 (new),
which belongs to the Education Department, more particularly
to the State Government’s Purushottam Middle School Jhajhara
and is more suitable for construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan. The District Magistrate had then
considered the aforesaid facts and approved the proposal of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
32/38
Aam Sabha for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at
Mauza-Jhajhara, Plot No. 1019 (new) by the impugned order
dated 06.12.2016. Thus, this Court finds that there is no
ambiguity much less illegality in the decision / order of the
District Magistrate, Darbhganga dated 06.12.2016, especially in
view of the submission of the learned counsel for the
Respondents-State to the effect that the land situated at village-
Jhajhara, appertaining to Plot No. 1019 (new), is a more suitable
land, is free from any encumbrance, is not having any water
logging problem, is adjacent to the main road No. 81 and
moreover, post-office, health center, high school, raised
platform and market are situated nearby, apart from the fact that
there is a serious dispute as to whether village / Mauza-Pakahi is
the village headquarter of Gram Panchayat Raj Pakahi-Jhajhara,
hence, there is no violation of the guidelines, issued by the
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Thus,
this Court does not find any ambiguity in the decision of the
District Magistrate, Darbhanga, dated 06.12.2016 whereby he
has granted approval for construction of Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan at Mauza Jhajhara, appertaining to Plot No. 1019, ad-
measuring 1 acre, hence, even on merits, the writ petitioners do
not have any case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
33/38
23. Yet another aspect of the matter is that it has been pleaded
in paragraph No. 23 of the counter affidavit filed by the
Mukhiya, who had been elected in the month of June, 2016, at
running page No. 133 of the brief, that 80% work of the
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan being constructed at Mauza-Jhajhara,
Plot No. 1019, has been completed inasmuch as the entire
ground floor is complete and the first floor thereof has also been
completed up to the roof level, whereafter work has been
stopped because of the interim order of this Court. However,
though the writ petitioners have filed rejoinder to the said
counter affidavit, but paragraph No. 18 of the rejoinder affidavit,
at running page no. 168 of the brief, would show that the said
fact has not been denied. In fact, even the Respondent No. 14 in
his counter affidavit has stated that 60-65% of the contract work
is complete, the entire structure of ground floor is complete and
the brick work of the first floor upto the lintel level has also
been completed but thereafter, the work has been stopped
because of the interim order of this Court and that he has been
paid only a sum of Rs. 37,07,407/-, which is merely 40%
amount of the contract work already carried out by him. Thus,
this Court finds that huge sums of money has already been
invested and the construction work of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
34/38
in question is at an advanced stage, hence stalling the same at
this juncture would not only cause further delay in construction
of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan but will also result in huge cost
escalation of the project apart from wastage of huge sums of
public money and loss to the State exchequer, thus it would be
injudicious and improper to shelve the project. In a judgment dt.
26.6.2015, passed in CWJC No. 9939 of 2012 (Ashok Kumar
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), reported in 2015(3) PLJR 265,
though the learned Division Bench of this Court arrived at a
finding that construction of the museum in question at Patna is
not at all in public interest, nonetheless considering the fact that
the construction was stated to be near completion, it refrained
from stalling the project in question. In this regard, it would be
relevant to reproduce paragraph nos. 24 to 29 herein below:-
“24. It is a matter of common knowledge that even the
projects like National Highways are being entrusted to
private agencies on build, operate and transfer or other
similar arrangements, wherein the private agencies are
required to spend the amount and then recover the same
by operating the facility. The objective is to ensure that
the limited resources of the State are made available for
other important purposes to benefit the people,
particularly, the poor. Similar practices are adopted for
other important projects meant for public benefit. The
construction of a museum by spending such huge amount
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
35/38that too when such facilities are already existing, cannot
said to be a matter of immediate necessity or public
concern. Even from what is spelt out in the counter
affidavit, the objective of constructing a museum is to
attract foreign visitors and tourists. This, at a time when
the basic facilities such as roads, sanitation, schools,
hospitals in the State of Bihar, are in miserable condition
and generating frustration and pity, if not anger. The
amount of 500 crores, if utilized properly could have
provided permanent shelters for lakhs of people or
Medical & Educational services to the people of the
State.
25. Even if the State wanted such a facility to come up, it
could have entrusted the same to an intending agency
that can finance the project and recover the amount from
the generated revenue. However, it thought it fit to
allocate 17 acres of prime land between the Secretariat
and the Patna High Court by forcibly evicting several
Government establishments and spending Rs. 500 crores
public money. Lack of transparency in the award of
contract is already demonstrated, from what is stated in
the counter affidavit itself. The existing century old
museum was treated as almost useless just because it is
not new or attractive. The decision makers were attracted
mostly by modernity of the building of the museum than
what is available to be preserved and displayed in it.
Even as a commercial venture, the project would be an
utter failure.
26. It is a matter of common knowledge that the airport at
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
36/38Patna is in primitive condition. There is no hope that it
would be developed in the near future, because the State
is not prepared to provide land. In contrast, the Airport in
Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand, carved out of Bihar
recently, recorded phenomenal development. The roads to
the monuments and museums situated in various parts of
the State are only to be experienced. The planners also
lost sight of the fact that a monument becomes attractive
mostly on account of location, representing the history of
that place and when shifted to a fabulous building; it
becomes just a show piece bereft of any historical
importance.
27. On behalf of the State, reliance is placed upon several
judgments of the Supreme Court such as Narmada
Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [(2000) 10 SCC 664];
Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) v. Union of India [(2002)
2 SCC 333]; Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing
Committee v. C.K. Rajan [(2003) 7 SCC 546]; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7
SCC 639]; S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu
[(2013) 9 SCC 659]; Jal Mahal Resorts P. Ltd. v. K.P.
Sharma [(2014) 8 SCC 804]; State of Karnataka v. Arun
Kumar Agarwal [(2000) 1 SCC 210]; Secretary, Minor
Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo
Ram Arya [(2002) 5 SCC 521]; Mahadaji Scindia
Smarak Samiti, Gwalior v. State of M.P. [1980 MPLJ
704]; and Suo Motu-In Re : Preservation of Antiquities
involved in Criminal Trial [AIR 1999 Ori 53].
28. We are conscious of the principles laid down by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
37/38Supreme Court. Though the facts of the case were
sufficient to stall the project at the initial stage, even if
one is guided by those principles, the question of stalling
the project does not arise since the construction is said to
be nearing completion. At the same time, we cannot
remain oblivious to the gross illegality on the part of the
State, not only taking up the project by wasting limited
public resources, but also in awarding the contract in a
manner which is far from transparent.
29. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition holding that
the project of construction of world class museum in
Patna at the cost of about Rs. Five hundred crores in a
prime land of 17 ½ acres between the Secretariat and the
Patna High Court is not at all in public interest and that
the manner in which the contracts of consultancy etc.
were awarded is far from transparent and objective.
However, we are not intending to stall the project which
is nearing completion. We direct that in case the museum
becomes unviable, the building and other infrastructure
shall not be alienated to private firms, but shall be
utilized for public institutions or purposes.”
24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
for the foregoing reasons and taking into account the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Ayaaubkhan
@ Noorkhan Pathan (supra) and Vinoy Kumar (supra) as also
by the Ld. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar (supra), which squarely cover the present case, I do not
Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2017 dt.07-04-2025
38/38
find any merit in the present writ petition, hence, the same
stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 8.1.2025 Uploading Date 7.4.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link