BIRBAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unusual case where a Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A) from Chanpatia constituency has filed the present writ petition seeking justice from the High Court in its prerogative writ jurisdiction that in matters of public planning in which the State is obliged to discharge its public duty to complete ear -marked and allocated plans, he is receiving no concrete answers on the plan for the construction of a Screw Pipe Bridge over river Pandait near Sathi police station. It is contended that this plan had been sanctioned in the year, 1988 -89 and scheme had been drawn up for execution. A Member of the Legislative Assembly is pleading before the High Court that he had filed several representations before the State Government between 1990 to 1998. He further states that he surrendered a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the M.L.A fund and a sum of Rs. 7 lacs had been sanctioned by the District Magistrate and a sum of Rs. 22 lacs was to be allocated by the State Government to the scheme to complete the public plan. The Hon 'ble M.L.A. also states that the Minister, Rural Development, accordingly, directed the Secretary to have the scheme executed and the plan accomplished. It is further contended that as a M.L.A. he has been moving different authorities of the State Government but there is apparently no response.

(2.) THIS is a sad feature that a M.L.A. cannot get a response from the State Government in the execution of a public plan which has been sanctioned and he has also contributed from the M.L.A. fund which had been allocated to him.

(3.) A plan which has been sanctioned and funds had been allocated specially out of the M.L.A. fund, the court has preservation whether the State Government can give such a reply as in the counter affidavit and get away with it. Even within the Government between the executive and the legislature the system has to work on answerability.