The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed against the change in the site for the construction of a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Darbhanga district. The Court ruled that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any personal legal injury or the violation of a legal right, which is necessary to maintain such a petition.
The petition was filed by two residents of Mauza-Pakahi village, who sought to quash a resolution passed in the Aam Sabha on August 2, 2016. This resolution approved the shift of the construction site from the original location in Mauza-Pakahi (Plot No. 1204) to a new site in Mauza-Jhajhara (Plot No. 1019), and was later endorsed by the District Magistrate’s order on December 6, 2016.
Read Also:- Schizophrenia Alone Not Valid Ground for Divorce Without Proven Severity: Patna High Court
“...petitioners have nowhere in the writ petition made any statement as to how they have been personally affected by the impugned order dated 6.12.2016 or as to what personal/legal injury has been caused to them… this Court finds that the present writ petition is not maintainable,” noted Justice Mohit Kumar Shah in the judgment.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that the original plot in Mauza-Pakahi had already been approved, the tenders were floated, and construction had started. They claimed the new site in Mauza-Jhajhara was unsuitable due to its smaller size, low elevation, and proximity to a school, which could be disrupted by political activities near the Panchayat Bhawan. They also alleged the new site belonged to a government school, and permission from the Education Department was not taken.
The petitioners highlighted that Mauza-Pakahi is the headquarter of the Gram Panchayat Pakahi-Jhajhara and therefore, under government guidelines, the Panchayat Bhawan should be constructed there. They cited an official letter dated August 21, 2015, which directed that all Panchayat Sarkar Bhawans must be built in the headquarter villages.
They argued that the site change was driven by vested interests and that it violated these official guidelines.
Respondents’ Stand
The State government and local authorities responded by stating that several objections had been raised by other village heads about the original plot. The land in Mauza-Pakahi was identified as Bandh (embankment) land, often affected by waterlogging and already occupied by Dalit families who had lived there for decades. They also pointed out that the original site was distant from the main road, creating accessibility issues.
On the other hand, the new site in Mauza-Jhajhara was deemed more suitable. It was located next to the main road (Road No. 81) and was free from encumbrances. The site had proximity to essential services like a health center, high school, post office, market, and raised platforms.
“...the land situated at village Jhajhara… is a more suitable land, is free from any encumbrance, is not having any water logging problem, is adjacent to the main road… and moreover, post-office, health center, high school, raised platform and market are situated nearby…” stated the court, quoting the State’s submissions.
Additionally, the court recorded that the site change was based on recommendations from the Circle Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer after a proper inquiry and that a unanimous resolution had been passed in the Aam Sabha approving the new site.
Read Also:- Government Cannot Restart Disciplinary Enquiry After Report Submission: Patna HC
The Mukhiya of the Panchayat also confirmed that Plot No. 1204 was not at the Panchayat headquarters and had been falsely recommended earlier without public consent. He alleged that the petitioners, having connections with the former Mukhiya, were acting with ulterior motives.
Construction Already Nearing Completion
Another significant factor in the court's decision was the status of the ongoing construction. It was revealed that around 80% of the construction at the new site was already completed. The contractor, Gauri Shankar Yadav, stated that stopping the work at this stage would cause a massive loss of public funds and delay the project unnecessarily.
“...huge sums of money has already been invested and the construction work of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in question is at an advanced stage… stalling the same at this juncture would not only cause further delay but will also result in huge cost escalation of the project apart from wastage of huge sums of public money…” the Court observed.
The Court emphasized that halting a near-complete project would not serve the public interest. It cited a previous judgment where even though the court found issues in a government project, it refrained from stopping the construction because it was near completion.
Ultimately, the Court held that there was no illegality in the change of site and that the new location was better suited for the purpose. The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed accordingly.
Case Title: Brij Nandan @ Siya Ram Yadav and Anr vs The State of Bihar and ors
