Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1659 (RAJ)

MAHENDRA SINGH BRAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2006-05-12

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been submitted by a member of Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar raising various objections and contentions particularly in relation to the resolution dated 15. 10. 2005 passed by the Zila Parishad for construction of a rest house. The said resolution at item No. 4 of the minutes of the meeting held on 15. 10. 2005 has been submitted with this writ petition as Annexure-1 and reads in its entirety thus. ( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that the resolution suffers from various illegalities and shortcomings and that he has already represented against it to the State Government (vide representations annexed with this writ petition as Annexure-4, 5, 6 and 7 ). The grievance of the petitioner is that Zila parishad is proceeding illegally in relation to the construction of the said rest house and the State Government has failed to take appropriate steps despite representations. ( 3 ) AFTER attempting to argue the matter for quite some time, learned counsel Mr. B. S. Sandhu appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would limit his submissions in this writ petition to the extent that the State government must take decision on his representations; and to that extent directions may be issued to the Government to expedite the matter and to take decision on his representations within short time. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that no case for issuance of any writ, order or direction at the instance of the petitioner is made out. ( 5 ) A perusal of the record and particularly the minutes of the meeting dated 15. 10. 2005 prima facie makes out that in relation to the particular construction work of rest house, the petitioner seems to be the lone voice of dissent and else the quorum has taken the decision to proceed with execution of the work. ( 6 ) SO far the petitioners right of expression is concerned, the same remain unexceptionable and his right to raise objection also cannot be denied. ( 6 ) SO far the petitioners right of expression is concerned, the same remain unexceptionable and his right to raise objection also cannot be denied. However, the petitioner for that matter cannot insist that his right to raise objection or to disagree or to question a particular resolution being passed by the Institution invests him with any further legal right so as to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of any writ, order or direction in relation to the functions of the Panchayati raj Institution; and against a resolution passed by the quorum. ( 7 ) BY virtue of Section 92 of the Rajasthan panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the State Government is the chief superintending and controlling authority in respect of all the matters relating to the administration of the Panchayati Raj institutions and it may, by an order in writing, cancel any resolution or order passed by a Panchayati Raj Institution or any standing committee thereof, if in its opinion such resolution is not legally passed or is in excess or abuse of the powers conferred by or under this Act or under any law for the time being in force, or if its execution is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety of person or property or is likely to cause a breach of the peace. However, before taking such action of cancelling any resolution of the Panchayati Raj institution, the Government is required to afford reasonable opportunity to the concerned Institution. The power of the government as superintending and controlling authority under section 92 are, therefore, undoubted; and the petitioner has already approached the Government. It appears from the document Annexure-8 placed on record by the petitioner himself that the Chief Accounts Officer has already asked the chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad to inquire into the allegations of the petitioner about irregularities in passing the resolution and has sought comments after inquiry. It cannot, therefore, be said that the concerned authorities have simply ignored the representations made by the petitioner. It cannot, therefore, be said that the concerned authorities have simply ignored the representations made by the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE authorities being dealing with the matter in accordance with law, this Court is clearly of opinion that the suggestion on behalf of the petitioner to issue innocuous type of directions to consider his representations within a stipulated period, do not fit in the fact situation of, and the rights sought to be professed in, the present case. The writ petition remains fundamentally bereft of substance and is, therefore, rejected.