District Magistrate directed to decide the petitioner’s representation after appropriate inquiry within six weeks.

The petitioner, a resident of Ward No. 28, Darbhanga, alleged irregularities in the construction of a path-cum-drain from the house of Kailash Mahaseth to the house of Sanjay Jha.

He sought, inter alia, constitution of an independent technical committee, inspection and technical audit of the work, preservation of records, withholding of payments, action against responsible persons, possible blacklisting of the contractor, scrutiny of other works executed by the contractor, and protection from intimidation.

The petitioner had already submitted a representation, annexed as Annexure-P/3, concerning the alleged irregularities.

During the hearing, the respondents proposed that the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, consider and decide the representation after making appropriate inquiries. The petitioner agreed to this course.

Whether the petitioner’s representation concerning the alleged irregularities in the construction work should be considered and decided by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, after appropriate inquiry.

Whether the writ petition should be disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate to decide the representation within a prescribed time, instead of granting the substantive reliefs sought in the petition.

Where a competent administrative authority is required to examine factual allegations concerning the execution and quality of public works, the appropriate course is to direct that authority to consider the petitioner’s representation and undertake such inquiry as it deems appropriate.

The Court did not adjudicate the allegations on merits, determine liability, or invoke any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent.

The allegations raised issues requiring factual and technical verification, including the manner of execution of the path-cum-drain and compliance with the sanctioned estimate and technical requirements.

Since the petitioner had already submitted a representation and the District Magistrate was the appropriate authority to examine the matter, the Court accepted the respondents’ proposal to have the representation considered administratively.

The petitioner consented to this course, making it unnecessary for the Court to undertake a direct technical inquiry or grant the broader reliefs sought in the writ petition.

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga, was directed to consider Annexure-P/3 and, after making such inquiries as deemed appropriate, decide the representation within six weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded, and any pending applications were also disposed of.