Case Background
The writ case was filed by a resident of village Muskipur in Khagaria district. He lives under Gram Panchayat Raj Mushkipur, police station Gogri.
On 26.12.2020, the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, issued a notification. Through this notification, the State declared its intention to upgrade Gogri-Jamalpur Nagar Panchayat to Gogri-Jamalpur Nagar Parishad.
The proposed upgraded municipal area was to include, among other areas, Gram Panchayat Raj Mushkipur. The petitioner objected to this inclusion of his Gram Panchayat within the new Nagar Parishad limits.
Feeling aggrieved, he approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction. He asked the Court to set aside the notification dated 26.12.2020 so far as it included Muskipur Gram Panchayat in the proposed municipal body.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court examined two main grounds raised by the petitioner against the State notification.
First, the petitioner argued that before issuing the notification, the State Government ought to have taken consent from Gram Panchayat Raj Mushkipur. According to him, this consent was required under Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Second, he submitted that the notification did not satisfy the population requirement mentioned in the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. On this basis also, he wanted the notification quashed.
The Division Bench carefully read the pleadings in the writ petition. On this reading, it found no factual foundation at all for the second ground relating to population.
The Court pointed out that there was no averment in the writ application to support the statement that the population requirement under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act was not fulfilled. Without any specific facts or figures pleaded, the Court held that this contention had to be rejected outright. It therefore dismissed the population-based challenge at the threshold.
The Bench then turned to the first and main contention: that Gram Panchayat consent under Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, was mandatory before any such notification.
On this issue, the Court relied heavily on a recent Division Bench decision dated 09.03.2022 in C.W.J.C. No. 8511 of 2021, titled Manoj Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others and other analogous matters.
In Manoj Kumar, similar objections had been raised. There, the petitioners’ counsel had argued that the State had not complied with Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. He submitted that there had been no consultation with Gram Panchayats while excluding villages from a Panchayat area and including them in a municipal area.
He had relied on an earlier Single Judge decision in C.W.J.C. No. 10074 of 2009 (Neelam Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others). In Neelam Devi, Section 11 of the unamended Panchayat Raj Act had been interpreted to require such consultation. According to that line of reasoning, absence of consultation with Gram Panchayats would make the entire exercise illegal.
However, as the Division Bench observed in Manoj Kumar, the legal position changed after the Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2017. The controversy in Manoj Kumar, like the present case, related to action taken under the amended provisions.
The Bench in Manoj Kumar noted that the post-2017 law had already been examined by another Division Bench in the case of Usha Devi. In Usha Devi, the Court had analysed the effect of Section 1 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, as amended in 2017, and Section 14 of the same Act.
Paragraphs 24 to 27 of Usha Devi, reproduced in Manoj Kumar and again in the present judgment, explain the position. Section 1, after amendment, states that the Panchayat Raj Act extends to the whole of Bihar except those areas where the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, or the Cantonment Act, 1924, applies.
The Division Bench in Usha Devi drew a clear conclusion. The moment the State issues a notification under Section 4 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, declaring its intention to constitute a particular area as a municipal area, the Panchayat Raj Act ceases to apply to that area.
This means that the protections and tenure under the Panchayat Raj Act, including that of elected Mukhiyas, cannot stand in the way of upgradation or constitution of a municipality according to the Municipal Act.
Further, Section 14(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act, read with Article 243E(1) of the Constitution, shows that a Gram Panchayat continues for five years from its first meeting “unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force.” The Court in Usha Devi held that dissolution of a Panchayat can thus occur by operation of law, namely by application of Section 4 of the Municipal Act through an intention notification.
In Manoj Kumar, the Division Bench applied this reasoning to reject the argument that consultation under Section 11 of the Panchayat Raj Act remained mandatory after the 2017 amendment. It concluded that once a notification under Section 4 of the Municipal Act is issued, the Panchayat Raj Act provisions, including Section 11, become inapplicable to that area.
Returning to the present case, the Bench noted that the impugned notification dated 26.12.2020 was exactly such an intention notification under the Municipal Act. It was issued to upgrade Gogri-Jamalpur Nagar Panchayat to a Nagar Parishad and to include Gram Panchayat Raj Mushkipur within its limits.
Following the settled law in Manoj Kumar and Usha Devi, the Court held that there was no legal requirement to obtain consent from the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Panchayat Raj Act before issuing this notification. Once the Municipal Act came into play through the intention notification, the Panchayat Raj Act provisions ceased to apply in that area.
Therefore, the petitioner’s first contention also failed. The Bench explicitly stated that, in view of the Division Bench judgment in Manoj Kumar, there was no merit in the submission that Section 11 non-compliance could vitiate the constitution or upgradation of the municipality.
After dealing with both grounds, the Court concluded that the writ application was without substance. It accordingly dismissed the petition.
The Bench, however, made it clear that there would be no order as to costs. This means that while the petitioner lost the case, he was not saddled with any monetary penalty by way of costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for villagers and Gram Panchayat representatives who are affected when their rural area is proposed to be merged into a Nagar Panchayat or Nagar Parishad.
The Patna High Court confirms that, after the 2017 amendment to the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, consent of the Gram Panchayat is not required once the State issues an intention notification under the Bihar Municipal Act to create or upgrade a municipal body.
The Court also underlines that a challenge based on population figures must be backed by clear facts in the petition. Bare statements without supporting averments will not be entertained.
Practically, this means that when the government decides to convert rural areas into urban local bodies, affected residents cannot rely on Section 11 of the Panchayat Raj Act to stop the notification. They must instead look for other valid legal grounds, and must plead specific facts to support those grounds.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a notification dated 26.12.2020, declaring intention to upgrade Gogri-Jamalpur Nagar Panchayat to Nagar Parishad and including Muskipur Gram Panchayat, be struck down for not meeting population requirements under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007?
Answer: No. The writ petition contained no specific averments showing violation of the population requirement, so this ground was rejected outright. -
Issue: Is prior consent or consultation with the concerned Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, mandatory before issuing such an intention notification under the Municipal Act?
Answer: No. Following the Division Bench decision in Manoj Kumar, based on Usha Devi, the Court held that once an intention notification under Section 4 of the Municipal Act is issued, the Panchayat Raj Act, including Section 11, becomes inapplicable to that area. Non-compliance with Section 11 does not vitiate the notification.
Cases Cited by the Court
- C.W.J.C. No. 8511 of 2021, Manoj Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others and other analogous matters (Division Bench decision dated 09.03.2022).
- C.W.J.C. No. 10074 of 2009, Neelam Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Single Judge; considered in Manoj Kumar).
- Usha Devi (Division Bench; paragraphs 24–27 quoted through Manoj Kumar; full case details not provided in this judgment).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3426 of 2022
Case Title: Mazhar Ali vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2022(3) PLJR 139
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 20-05-2022
Advocates: Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7 for the respondents; Mr. Shankar Kumar, AC to AAG-7 for the respondents
Nature of the Case: Civil writ petition challenging State notification for upgradation of Nagar Panchayat to Nagar Parishad and inclusion of a Gram Panchayat within the proposed municipal area.
Link to the Judgment: Official Patna High Court judgment link
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
