JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Gram Panchayat, Keharpura, Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa, district Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) though its Sarpanch Dalip Singh has filed this writ. petition challenging the constitution of the Nirman Committee as illegal and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 and the Rajasthan Panchayat and Zila Parishads Act, 1959. 2. According to the petitioner. the elections were conducted for Sarpanch and Panchas of village Panchayat, Mahapura on 10-12-1981. Shri Dalip Singh defeated Shri Nand Lal in a straight centest by a margin of 81 votes and he was duly declared elected as Sarpanch. Shri Dalip Singh, after his election as Sarpanch, took keen interest in the overall development of the Panchayat circle which comprises of the villages Keharpura Kalan, Shyampura, Malaria and Bhadunda Khurd. A meeting of the Panchayat was also convened and a resolution was passed for getting constructed a water tank in each of the three villages of the Panchayat circle. The amount of Rs. 21,600/- was sanctioned by the District Village Development Authority, Jhunjhunu vids its order Annexure-1, dated 1-7-1982. It is further alleged that in the elections for the post of Paradhan. Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa, Shri Dalip Singh had sided with Shri Mool Chand Katewa who was defeated by Smt. Sudha, the present Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa. As Shri Dalip Singh had proposed the candidature of Shri Mool Chand Katewa and also actively supported him, on this count the present Pradhan Smt. Sudha came to bear a grudge against him. On various occasions, she expressed that Dalip Singh would not be permitted to function as Sarpanch and the development works in the Panchayat Circle would be carried out through a Committee headed by Shri Nand Lal whom the petitioner had defeated in the last elections of the Sarpanch. It is further alleged that on 14-7 1982 the matter was brought to the notice of the Collector, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-2. It is further alleged that the Collector, Jhunjhunu vide his order dated 19-7-1982 accorded sanction to the Committee with Shri Nand Lal was President and Sarva Shri Bhola Ram, Mathada Ram, Sheo Bux, Gugan Ram and Smt. Madan Kanwar as members for carrying out construction work in the Panchayat Circle of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the Collector, Jhunjhunu vide his order dated 19-7-1982 accorded sanction to the Committee with Shri Nand Lal was President and Sarva Shri Bhola Ram, Mathada Ram, Sheo Bux, Gugan Ram and Smt. Madan Kanwar as members for carrying out construction work in the Panchayat Circle of the petitioner. On enquiries the petitioner came to learn that his applications were forwarded by the Deputy District Development Officer, Jhunjhunu vide letter dated 18-7-1982 to the Prabhari Adhikari, Relief Branch, Collector, Jhunjhunu. The petitioner also come to know that a letter was sent by Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa on 12-7-1982 with respect to the constitution of the Committee. It is alleged that in this letter, it was mentioned that Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Chirawa had in writing given orders in respect of the constitution of the Committe. It is also alleged that the Collector, Jhunjhunu took a serious note of the aforementioned letter dated 12-7-82 vide letter dated 19th July, 1982. By this letter Collector warned the Vikash Adhikari that in future he should desist from passing such orders without obtaining administrative sanction from his office. A copy of this letter has been annexed and marked as Annexure (6) The petitioner in these circumstances challenged the constitution of the Nirman Committee vide order dated 19-7-1982 (Annexure-3) mainly on the following grounds: "According to the petitioner, the constitution of such committee for carrying out construction work in a Panchayat circle, is not contemplated either in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act or in the Rajasthan Panchayat and Zila Parishads Act, 1959. 3. Under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Zila Parishads Act it is obligatory upon a Panchayat Samiti to have works and programmes executed only through the agency of the Panchayat of that Panchayat Circle. It is further alleged that section 16 of the Panchayat Act lays down the duties and powers of the Sarpanch. Under Clause (XV) of section 16, the Sarpanch is required to execute such work which the Officer-in-charge of the Panchayat may authorise. Further more under Section 21 (9) of the Act, it is the Sarpanch who is required to carry the decision of the Panchayat. The development or any other work in a Panchayat Circle can be carried out only through the Pinchayat as provided under Section 24 (7) of the Act. Further more under Section 21 (9) of the Act, it is the Sarpanch who is required to carry the decision of the Panchayat. The development or any other work in a Panchayat Circle can be carried out only through the Pinchayat as provided under Section 24 (7) of the Act. It is further alleged that the action of the constitution of the impugned Committee totally ignoring the Sarpanch is politically motivated and mala fide on the face of it. It has also been alleged that the Constitution of the Committee is in express violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was issued nor opportunity of hearing was afforded either to the Panchayat or to the Sarpanch. It has also been alleged that the constitution of the committee is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as in all other Panchayats except the petitioner, the works are being executed through the respective Panchayats in association with their Sarpanchas. 4. In reply to a show cause notice, respondents Nos 4 and 5 i. e. Vikash Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa and Shri Nand Lal have filed a reply to the writ petition. The answering respondents by way of preliminary objections have raised the following grounds:- (i) that with regard to same subject matter a civil suit is pending in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Chirawa The suit has been filed by Bujrang Lal, Banwari Lal, Onkar Mal, Durga Singh, Narain Singh and Udai Singh. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Keharpura (petitioner) is a party in the suit as defendant No. 1 The civil suit has been filed on 26th July, 1982. The plaintiffs in that suit were the men of the Sarpanch and the said suit had been got filed by the Sarpanch in which the Constitution of the Nirman Committee as well as the work of construction of the water tank has been challenged. In that suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat Keharpura had also filed a reply to the application filed under O. 39, R. 1 and 2 C. P.C, in which he admitted the averments made by the plaintiff. In that suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat Keharpura had also filed a reply to the application filed under O. 39, R. 1 and 2 C. P.C, in which he admitted the averments made by the plaintiff. The petitioner suppresseded this material fact in the present writ petition and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.(ii) As a civil suit is already pending in a competent court to decide the same points involved in the present writ petition and when the subject matter of the suit is the same. and the petitioner is a party in that suit and all the points of controversy shall he decided in the said suit after making enquiries and giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the present petition is not maintainable. (iii) the application for grant of temporary injunction has been dismissed by the learned Munsif. in which it has been held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience was not in favour of granting injunction.(iv) the petitioner has not impleaded the necessary parties in the writ petition. The Nirman Committee consists of 6 persons, but only Nand Lal has been impleaded as party to the writ petitioner as the main relief sought by the petitioner is that the constitution of the Nirman Committee be declared as illegal and without anthority of law, all the members of the Nirman Committee are necessary parties and in their absence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. (v) The construction of the water tank for which the Nirman Committee had been constituted had made a sizable progress. The construction work had already started and about Rs. 13000/- had been spent and the construction work was likely to be completed within a few days and as such this Hon'ble Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (vi) The Gram Panchayat, Keharpura is not an aggrieved party by the constitution of the Nirman Committee, which has been constituted for constructing a water tank. The construction of the water tank in the village is being carried out at the instance of the Zila Gramin Vikash Adhikaran District Village Development Agency)". (vi) The Gram Panchayat, Keharpura is not an aggrieved party by the constitution of the Nirman Committee, which has been constituted for constructing a water tank. The construction of the water tank in the village is being carried out at the instance of the Zila Gramin Vikash Adhikaran District Village Development Agency)". This water tank was being constructed for making water facilities available to the animals of the concerned village. The construction of the water tank was required to be completed on the top priority. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat did not take any action when he was approached by the Vikash Adhikari in this connection and as there was no other alternative except to get the work completed by constituting a Nirman Committee. 5. Apart from the aforesaid preliminary objections, a para-wise reply has also been given to the grounds raised in the writ petition. In the reply, inter-ilia, it has been alleged that the accusation made by the petitioner against the present Pradhan Smt. Sudha are emphatically denied. The petitioner in this regard has made vague and bald accusations without giving details and particulars about the time, date and place when such expressions were made by Smt. Sudha. It is further alleged that the Constitution of the Committee is nothing to do with the Rajasthan Panchayats Act or the Zila Parishad Act. It has not been constituted under any of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Even otherwise, there is a provision in the Panchayat Act, which empowers the Officer-in charge of the Panchayats (Collector) to appoint some person to perform any duty imposed upon the Panchayat. 6. It is also alleged that the construction of the water tank is the work of Gram Vikash Adnikaran, Jhunjhunu. The water tank in question is not being constructed from the budget of the Panchayat Samiti. Though it is correct that if any work of the Panchayat Samiti is to be executed in a Panchayat Circle then ordinarily it should be got executed through the Agency of the Panchayat, but in a given case if the Sarpanch does not cooperate in the execution of the work of police utility and importance or is not interested in carrying out its execution, the Panchayat Samiti is not debarred to get the works executed through another agency. 7. 7. It has been further mentioned in the additional pleas that the Zila Vikash Gramin Adhikaran had sanctioned 7 construction works within the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti Chirawa. The work is the construction of water tank for storing and supplying water for animals in the respective villages. A letter dated 28-6-82 signed by the Additional Collector (Development) Jhunjhunu was received by the Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa on 29-6-82. The work was of a top priority and as such the money was to be utilised by 30th June, 1982 as per the orders. The construction works were being carried out by the District Rural Development Authority, Jhunjunu, which was mainly responsible for its execution. The executing Agency is required to submit the complete accounts and the utilisation certificate to the said authority. The District Rural Development Authority is competent to make inspection of the work from time to time and examine the accounts of expenditure and take steps to maintain the work for its constant use. A photostat copy of the communication dated 28-6-82 alongwith the order received from the office of the District Rural Development Authority, Jhunjhunu has been annexed as Annexures R-4 and R-4A. As the matter was of urgent nature, the respondent No 4 Vikash Adhikari himself went to the Head Quarters of the concerned Gram Panchayats to enforce them about the construction work to be carried out and to ask the concerned Sarpanch to immediately start the execution work. The Sarpanchas of that concerned Panchayats except the petitioners agreed to start construction work immediately. However, the petitioner, Sarpanch with whom the respondent No. 4 met on 29-6-92 refused to carry out the execution work and further refused to sign on the back of the letters Annexure-R. IV. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 sent an information in writing through the peon of the Panchayat Samiti, the peon took the notice. which was refused to be accepted by the Sarpanch. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 sent an information in writing through the peon of the Panchayat Samiti, the peon took the notice. which was refused to be accepted by the Sarpanch. A photostat copy of the notice along with the endorsement of the peon about the refusal in the presence of two witnesses has been submitted and marked as Annexure-R-V. Thereafter, on 8-7-82 the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. 52 wrote to the Sarpanch that he had not started construction work of the water tank at village Matana and as such, he should now start the work immediately, otherwise, the construction work shall be carried out by constituting a Nirman Committee This letter was also sent by hand through the peon of the Panchayat Samiti, but the Sarpanch petitioner refused to accept this letter also and the notice was received un-served. A true copy of the said notice has been submitted and marked as Annexure R-VI. In these circumstances, when the petitioner Sarpanch was not interested to raise the construction of the water tank the villagers of the village, Matana made a representation before the respondent No. 4 to the effect that the Sarpanch was not taking interest in the development work, a Nirman Committee be constituted consisting of 6 persons named therein. This representation was personally handed over to the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, who made an endorsement to proceed further in the matter of constitution of Nirman Committee. A photostat copy of the representation has been submitted as Annexure-VII. The respondent No. 4 then vide his letter dated 12-7-82 wrote to the Collector Jhunjhunu for approval of the Nirman Committee suggested by the villagers. The Collector vide his order dated 19-7-82 approved the constitution of the Nirman Committee. Thereafter. the respondent No. 4 wrote a letter to respondent No..5 Shri Nand Lal to start the construction work. The construction of the water tank had been started on 21-7-82. The construction work continued till 26th July, 1982. Thereafter a civil suit was filed by Shri Bajrang Lal and 5 others at the initiation of the petitioner-Sarpanch, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chiwara on 26-7-82. An ex-parte injunction order was obtained from the court on the same day and as such the construction work was stopped in pursuance to the Courts Order. Thereafter a civil suit was filed by Shri Bajrang Lal and 5 others at the initiation of the petitioner-Sarpanch, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chiwara on 26-7-82. An ex-parte injunction order was obtained from the court on the same day and as such the construction work was stopped in pursuance to the Courts Order. The construction work has again been started on 10-8-82 after the injunction order was vacated by the learned Munsiff. 8. The respondent No 4, Vikash Adhikari also filed an affidavit on 16-8-82 mentioning therein that a report has been obtained from the Junior Engineer regarding the progress of the construction of water tank up to 15-8-82. The original report submitted by the Junior Engineer has been marked as Annexure VIII. From the report itself it is clear that most of the work of the water tank in construction, was completed. The only work which remains to be done was roofing, plastering and flooring of water tank. The flooring and plastering work had also been started on 16-8-82. 9. I have heard Mr. Dhankar at length on behalf of the petitioner and Mr Tibrewal for respondent No. 5 r. K. K. Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Dhankar also submitted written arguments on behalf of the petitioner. 10. After a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and through perusal of the record, I am of the view that this writ petition. deserves to be dismissed. 11. It would not be necessary to go into all questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case as in the facts and circumstances of this case. the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on account of the conduct of the Sarpanch-petitioner. It is undisputed that the work of construction of water tank for the animals was of most importance and public utility for the Panchayat itself. It is abundantly clear from the reply submitted by the respondents No. 4 and 5 and the annexures RIV, R-IV-A R-V, R-VI and R-VII that the petitioner Sarpanch was not taking interest in the execution of the work and under these circumstances on the request of the villagers a Nirman Committee was constituted which was ultimately sanctioned by the Collector. It is abundantly clear from the reply submitted by the respondents No. 4 and 5 and the annexures RIV, R-IV-A R-V, R-VI and R-VII that the petitioner Sarpanch was not taking interest in the execution of the work and under these circumstances on the request of the villagers a Nirman Committee was constituted which was ultimately sanctioned by the Collector. It was not a work for which any amount was to be spent by the Panchayat itself nor any amount was provided in the budget of the Panchayat. The construction work of the water tank was being carried out by the Zila Gramin Vikash Adhikaran, Jhunjhunu and the amount was also spent by it. According to the additional affidavit filed by the Vikash Adhihari the major work of the construction of water tank had already been completed upto 15th August. 1982 and the only work which remained to be done was roofing, plastering and flooring of the water tank. The executing agency is required to submit the complete accounts and the utilisation certificate to the Zila Gram~n Vikash Adhikaran. When the petitioner-Sarpanch was not taking any interest in the execution of the construction of water tank, there does not appear to be any illegality in constituting a Nirman Committee at the request of the villagers. The Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti and the Collector, Jhunjhunu have given approval of the constitution of such Committee. Even according to the petitioner's own case, there is no provision in the Panchayat Act or Zila Parishads Act for constitution of such Committee and as such the Nirman Committee constituted in the present case is only a committee under the administrative orders of the Collector. who is also an Officer-in-charge of the Panchayats. Thus in the facts and circumstances of this case, if the Nirman Committee was constituted to execute the construction work of water tank, it cannot he said to be illegal under any provisions of the Act. 12. Apart from the reasons given above. the petitioner is also not entitled to seek any relief as a civil suit in this regard is also pending in the court of Munsif, Chirawa. 12. Apart from the reasons given above. the petitioner is also not entitled to seek any relief as a civil suit in this regard is also pending in the court of Munsif, Chirawa. It is no doubt true that the aforesaid suit has not been filed by the Gram Panchavat itself or the Sarpanch Shri Dalip Singh, but from a perusal of the reply submitted by the respondents and the copy of Annexure-R.I and Annexure R-II the reply submitted by the Sarpanch, who is a defendant in that suit, the Sarpanch has supported the case of the plaintiffs and there appears to be force in the reply of the respondents that the aforesaid suit had been filed at the initiation of the Sarpanch. It is no doubt true that in the said suit the relief sought is that the construction of the water tank should be made at another place, but a reading of the entire plaint shows that the constitution of the Nirman Committee is also challenged in the body of the plaint. The learned Munsiff by his order dated 10-8-1982 dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs and took the view that there was no prima-facie case found in favour of the plaintiffs. In this view of the matter also, it appears that the present writ petition is an outcome of political rivalry and has no real substance. 13. There is yet another aspect of the case that the construction of the water tank has almost been completed and there does not survive any dispute. 14. However it is made clear that this Nirman Committee under challenge would be deemed to have been constituted for the purpose of constructing water tank only and after the same having been completed, it would cease to function and no other work would be entrusted to it in future. 15. In the result with the above observation this this writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed in Limine. *******