MAHNAR NAGAR PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case presents the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority and the district administration of Vaishali in poor light before the court and the facts of the case typically illustrate how the constitutional scheme is flouted and subverted at the grass -root level by the very same statutory authorities and the administration that bear the legal obligations and responsibilities to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner before the court is the Nagar Panchayat, Mahnar (Vaishali). It is a 'Municipality ' envisaged under Art. 243Q (1)(a) of the Constitution. It is defined under section 3 (14B) of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act and it was constituted by the State Government by issuing the notification under memo no. 2651, dated 30.8.2001 in exercise of its powers under section 6, read with section 390E of the Municipal Act. Article 243W of the Constitution deals with powers, authorities and responsibilities of municipalities and the 12th Schedule of the Constitution enumerates the areas and spheres over which the municipalities would exercise their authority and jurisdiction. What are enumerated in the 12th Schedule are fully incorporated in section 11A of the Municipal Act and on a perusal of the list, in particular Item no.17 of the 12th Schedule and Clause XVIII of Section 11A of the Municipal Act, one should think that the right to set -up and run a bus stand should come naturally to the Nagar Panchayat or in any event the claim of the Nagar Panchayat in this regard would be far more preferential than an individual person. But the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority and the district adminstration of Vaishali seem to think otherwise.

(3.) THIS court would have understood if the whole thing was the result of some over -sight and it would have appreciated had the authorities shown any remorse over the mistake and tried to correct it..But the worst part of it all is that the respondent authorities have brazenly tried to defend what is indefensible and their stand and conduct before the court gives rise to suspicions of foul play.