Writ Petition Challenging Panchayat Bhawan Site Change Dismissed Due to Lack of Locus Standi and Merits: Patna High Court - 2025-04-07

Patna High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Change of Panchayat Bhawan Site, Cites Lack of Locus Standi and Merits

Patna, April 7, 2025: The Patna High Court, in a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit KumarShah , dismissed a writ petition (CWJC No. 546 of 2017) challenging the decision to change the construction site of a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in the Pakahi-Jhajhara Gram Panchayat, Darbhanga district. The court primarily cited the petitioners' lack of locus standi (legal standing) and also found the decision to change the site justified on merits, considering the advanced stage of construction at the new location.

Case Background

The petitioners, Brij Nandan and Bechan Singh, residents of Village Pakahi, challenged two key decisions: 1. The Aam Sabha (village general assembly) resolution dated August 2, 2016, cancelling the originally selected site ( Mauza-Pakahi , Plot No. 1204) for the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga's order dated December 6, 2016, approving the construction at a new site ( Mauza-Jhajhara , Plot No. 1019).

They sought the court's direction to construct the Bhawan at the originally chosen Pakahi site. The dispute arose after a new Mukhiya was elected in June 2016, leading to objections against the site selected by the previous administration.

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, argued: * The original Pakahi site (Plot 1204) was duly approved after inspections and reports confirmed its suitability. A tender was even awarded to Respondent No. 14 (Gauri Shankar Yadav) for construction there. * The new Jhajhara site (Plot 1019) is unsuitable – smaller, low-lying (requiring costly filling), belongs to a Middle School, and its proximity might disrupt the school's educational environment. * The decision to change the site was driven by "vested interests" and "oblique motives" of the newly elected Mukhiya. * Government guidelines (letter dated 21.08.2015) mandate construction at the Gram Panchayat headquarter village, which they claimed was Pakahi. The change to Jhajhara violated these guidelines. * The original site was wrongly depicted as having water-logging issues.

Respondents' Arguments

The State of Bihar and other respondents, including the incumbent Mukhiya and the contractor, countered:

* Preliminary Objection: The petitioners lack locus standi as they haven't shown any personal legal injury caused by the site change. They are strangers meddling in the process.

* Original Site Unsuitable: The Pakahi site (Plot 1204) is government land classified as 'Bandh' (embankment/part of a river), prone to water-logging, far from the main road, and crucially, inhabited by 20-25 Dalit families who objected to their displacement.

* New Site Suitable: The Jhajhara site (Plot 1019) is adjacent to a main road (Road No. 81), near essential facilities (post office, health center, school, market), and deemed more suitable by official inquiries (Circle Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer). The School Management Committee had provided a 'No Objection'.

* Due Process Followed: The site change was based on a unanimous Aam Sabha resolution (02.08.2016) reflecting local consensus, followed by official inquiries and approval by the competent authority (District Magistrate).

* Headquarter Status Disputed: Respondents contested that Pakahi was the undisputed headquarter and argued guidelines allow selection of suitable land within the cluster.

* Advanced Construction: Significant public funds have been spent, and construction at the Jhajhara site was 60-80% complete (ground floor finished, first floor up to roof/lintel level). Stalling now would cause immense financial loss and prejudice.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The High Court addressed both the maintainability and the merits of the petition.

1. Lack of Locus Standi: Justice Shah extensively discussed the principle of locus standi , citing Supreme Court judgments like Ayaaubkhan @ Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) and Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2001) . The court emphasized: > "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."

The court found the petitioners failed to demonstrate any personal or legal right infringement, stating: > "...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 finds that the present writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of the writ petitioners..."

2. Merits of the Case: Even assuming maintainability, the court found no illegality in the District Magistrate's decision (06.12.2016) approving the Jhajhara site. * The court acknowledged the reported issues with the original Pakahi site (water-logging, Dalit habitation, accessibility) and the suitability of the new Jhajhara site based on official reports and the Aam Sabha resolution. * It noted the dispute regarding Pakahi's headquarter status and concluded there was no clear violation of guidelines justifying intervention. * Crucially, the court considered the advanced stage of construction at the new site. Referencing a Division Bench decision in Ashok Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2015) (where a museum project wasn't stalled despite issues due to near completion), the court observed: > "huge sums of money has already been invested and the construction work of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in question is at an advanced stage, hence stalling the same at this juncture would not only cause further delay... but will also result in huge cost escalation... apart from wastage of huge sums of public money..."

Conclusion: Finding the petition non-maintainable due to lack of locus standi and also lacking merit based on the facts presented and the advanced stage of construction, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition. The construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Mauza-Jhajhara , Plot No. 1019, can proceed.