Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 50 (ALL)

KALAWATI SINGH v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/collector

2001-01-17

PALOK BASU, R.K.DASH

body2001
PALOK BASU, R. K. DASH, JJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Smt. Kalawati Singh challenges the order of the District Magistrate, Balia dated 6. 12. 1999 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,13,999/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner on the supposed charge that the said amount has been wasted in constructing the building of the panchayat Bhawan in village Gayghat, District Balia. Challenging the said recovery order Sri s. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that political considerations seem to have been reigned supreme when the action under challenge was initiated against the petitioner and that may have the reason that the District Magistrate was persuaded to pass an order which was and is against the wishes of the people and also against the subsequent resolution of the gram Sabha. ( 2 ) ON entertaining the writ petition, respondents were called upon to file counter affidavit and by an interim order dated 13. 1. 2000, the operation of the order of the District Magistrate was stayed. From the order sheet it transpired that no counter-affidavit was forthcoming and as such a stop order was passed granting one week and no more to the respondents Counsel to file counter- affidavit. However, the attempt of the Court to have a reply from the respondents has gone in vein, thus the matter has been taken up for decision on merits. ( 3 ) THE actual controversy, however, surrounds a very small issue. Two plots of land, perhaps adjoining each other, because their numbers 374 and 375, have been allocated for construction of a dispensary on one and Panchayat Bhawan on the other. When the construction of the panchayat Bhawan was taken up on of these plots, the erstwhile Pradhan (whom the petitioner succeeded) raised an objection about the correctness of the plot number. The complaint sent to the District Magistrate saying that the aforesaid construction should be taken as unauthorised because the plot over which the dispensary was to come up was being used for constructing the panchayat Bhawan. The District Magistrate appears to have set up an enquiry which was sent down to the Tahsildar level. Views of the citizens living in or around the area concerned were ascertained. Measurements also seem to have been taken. Reports have been annexed as annexures 3 to 9 in the writ petition. The District Magistrate appears to have set up an enquiry which was sent down to the Tahsildar level. Views of the citizens living in or around the area concerned were ascertained. Measurements also seem to have been taken. Reports have been annexed as annexures 3 to 9 in the writ petition. With the contents of these annexures remaining intact as those have not been denied by filing any counter-affidavit though enough opportunities have been extended, it is apparent that those reports, including that of the S. D. M. , contain the consistent view prevailing that no error or illegality was involved if the Panchayat Bhawan comes up where it was being constructed. So much so that the Gaon Sabha passed a resolution to the effect that the Panchayat Bhawan should be completed very expeditiously where it was being constructed by the petitioner and the land which may have been earmarked earlier for the panchayat Bhawan, may be interchanged for construction of the dispensary. ( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further it may be pointed out that on receiving the complaint, the District magistrate had passed an order staying the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan. The SDMs report indicates that because of the stoppage of the work, money was being unnecessarily blocked and loss about to be caused was avoidable because no body was there to object, to the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan at the place chosen. ( 5 ) ON the aforesaid background, the District Magistrates impugned order seems highly reactive and contrary to any known provision of law. It should be empahsised that where local-self of the government in the cities and Panchayat Raj System in Che villages have found place in the constitution by adding Part (ix) and (ix) (a), all concerned must now be alive to the situation that a little bit of political activity here and there may be noticeable but those concerned, particularly the bureaucracy will do well and abide by the law and should not swayed by any local influence. The Court, like others, reposes full confidence in the bureaucracy for implementing the laws without fear or favour. ( 6 ) THERE is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has never been intimated about the report which was submitted by the official under the direction of the District Magistrate. The Court, like others, reposes full confidence in the bureaucracy for implementing the laws without fear or favour. ( 6 ) THERE is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has never been intimated about the report which was submitted by the official under the direction of the District Magistrate. There is also no denial of the fact that in the impugned order the District Magistrate has not at all referred to take note of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha as was passed when the construction was going on. There is also no denial of the fact that the people of the locality had no objection to the inter changing of the plots for the two proposed constructions i. e. a dispensary and a Panchayat bhawan. Ignoring all the three and proceeding to pass the impugned order appears draconian and also completely against the principles of natural justice. ( 7 ) SRI Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel made a valian effort to support the order of the district Magistrate. The argument raised is that the District Magistrate went with the earlier resolution and since the complaint was filed by the erstwhile Pradhan, he took note of that resolution alone. This argument is equivalent to an attempt by a drowning man catch a straw. Once the specific resolution was already passed and the SDMs report as well as that of the tahasildar were indicative of the views of the locality, the District Magistrate should have obeyed the public feelings. ( 8 ) NO other argument could be raised for the respondents for the reason that the respondents have not chosen to controvert any of the allegations made in the writ petition which has been argued with ability by Sri S. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the District Magistrate as contained in Annexure 10 is quashed and the sum of Rs. 21,399/- sought to be recovered or directed to be paid by the petitioner to the State Exchequer is also quashed. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law against persons concerned if and when such a situation comes. ( 11 ) THE parties shall bear their own costs. .