Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1256 (PAT)

Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-12-04

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. While the State Government may take instructions, matters as the present one do cause concern as they relate to planning for the third tier of government, that is, Panchayats and Municipalities, as are referred to in Chapter (sicArticle ?) 243 ZD of the Constitution of India. 2. The term of the Panchayats in Bihar, which returned as institutions of self government after more than two decades is at mid way today. Unfortunately, all the institutions referred to in the Constitution which should work as self government institutions, that is, the third tier government are not in place. The amendments to the Constitution took place 10 years ago. 3. This court has tired itself of reminding the State Government that the institutions as are referred to in Chapters re. Panchayats and Municipalities must be put in their place without any loss of time. The reason, not to do is an insult to the Constitution. There is a difference between the Panchayats as was enacted in 1947, that was the year of dominion status. That Act concerning panchayats was known as Bihar Panchayats Rajya Act, 1947 (Act 7 of 1948). It came into effect on 3 March, 1948. This was a period between 15 August, 1947 and 26 January, 1950 under Indian Independence Act, 1947. The nation which had received its independence was in a transition to become a republic. January 1950 brings in the Constitution. 4. There is a stark difference between the enactment of 1947, clearly a hang over of the Raj and the Panchayats and the Municipalities structured under Chapter IX and IXA of the Constitution of India. 5. The recognition to Panchayats legislated in 1947, gave sanction to create a village under section 3 on the basis of surveys etc., and there was emphasis to the revenue records of the district. A revenue village had an importance. Gram Panchayat could be created for every village or part of the village (an amendment in 1959), but it was dependent upon an action by a notification to recognise a village as also a Gram Panchayat. The Constitution has changed all this. In so far as the Gramsabha is concerned it is borne in the embryo of a village. Every time a youth enters the age of adult franchise is entered on the electoral roll, he becomes a member of the Gram Sabha. The Constitution has changed all this. In so far as the Gramsabha is concerned it is borne in the embryo of a village. Every time a youth enters the age of adult franchise is entered on the electoral roll, he becomes a member of the Gram Sabha. No one has to create a Gramsabha as birth is to a child and, thus, a Gramsabha is constituted amongst adult franchise members on the electoral roll. 6. Now the institutions are to work with the Panchayat. The Gramsabha owes its existence to no one except constituted by a body of persons who are registered in the electoral roll related to a village. Then comes the intermediate level institutions to be read with the village as an institution. The Constitution eliminates the Collector and the State Government and in giving identity to institutions mentioned in the definitions (Articles 243, 243P) leaves this to the Governor. There is a reason why the Constitution mentions the Governor instead of the State Government. In 1947 the legislation gave sanction to establish a village or a Grampanchayat by an executive fiat. It was the raj rule. Today, in republic, the village is a case of identity. The institutions along with the intermediate level institutions are institutions at work within the Constitution. 7. Now coming to the points straightaway in the petition. The issue is not of the present case but of Panchayats and intermediate level institutions which somehow seem to be ignored in planning aspects. For instance, the Constitution refers to the District Planning Committee under Article 243 ZD and the government is dragging its feet in installing them. A reference to this committee has been made reference in the legislation (Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,1993). But it is not being constituted. 8. Funds for planning are lapsing. Plans are being delayed. In the present case funds for the 10th Finance Commission are to be utilised. Today, the nation is to plan under the umbrella of the 12th Finance Commission. The record in the present case says that all the planning which were meant for the intermediate level institutions (the plan allocation for the Prime Ministers Gram Sadak Yojna) and their tenders were found to be irregular. This may be correct. The question arises why is the State Government centralising the power when it should have shed it under the auspices of the District Planning Committee? This may be correct. The question arises why is the State Government centralising the power when it should have shed it under the auspices of the District Planning Committee? Where are the people of the village and the intermediate level to go to? Are they entitled to seek an address with the Governor of the State? 9. The last question the Court will leave unanswered. In a republic the Constitution does permit them an access to the head of the State. If the representatives of Nalanda district whether the Members of the Gramsabha, Nagar Panchayat, Member of the Legislative Assembly and the Members of Parliament, so desire to meet their head of the State, the latter may be so kind enough as to give them an audience. 10. In the meantime, the State Counsel may take instructions on where exactly the plans are held up. 11. The Additional Advocate General-II is also present and this may perhaps be the last hint of the court that the District Planning Committee (Article 243 ZD) may be shown to be in place in every district of Bihar when another matter (CWJC No.13328 of 2003) comes up before this court. 12. Put up this case on 16 December, 2003 under the same heading.