1. This matter has been brought as a public interest litigation. The petitioner Sri Binod Murari Mishra states that he is an advocate of the Patna High Court and that he considers this matter to be a fit case to be decided by the High Court.

2. Between the statements made in the petition and the submissions on it there is a vast difference with contradictions.

3. The unfortunate part is when invited to submit on what exactly is wrong with the impugned order dated 13 June 2002 based on an order dated 13 May 1998, the submissions were a run away to make a negative criticism of the aspect that the Patna Regional Development Authority in the view of the order of the High Court dated 19 March 2002 does not have any authority to issue any orders as it is constituted otherwise than spelt out in the Constitution of India.

4. A city cannot be left rudderless without administration. There may have been a delay that certain self government bodies in Bihar have not fallen in line after the Constitution saw the amendments and insertion of Chapters IX & IXA, on Panchayats and Municipalities. It is acknowledged by the Additional Advocate General present in court that there is much which h