Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 197 (ORI)

Manoj Kumar Jena v. State of Orissa

2006-03-16

A.K.PARICHHA, P.K.TRIPATHY

body2006
ORDER 16.03.2006 — None appears for intervenor. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel are present. Counter has already been filed. Heard. The writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. Petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Machhalo Gram Panchay¬at in the district of Keonjhar. He ventilates his grievance against the instruction dated 19.10.2005 issued by the Collector, Annexure-1 and the meeting convened by the B.D.O. for selecting the VLL as per the letter No.1625 dated 19.10.2005, Annexure-2 and prays to quash the same. It appears from Annexure-1 that Collector issued instruc¬tions to the B.D.Os. to see that the Selection of VLL be made on annual basis so as to facilitate timely execution of work under the SGRY/NFFWP Scheme so also for undertaking all developmental Projects under different Panchayats. It appears from Annexure-2 that opposite party No.4 i.e., the Block Development Officer, Ghashipura Block issued notice to the Sarpanches within that Block fixing different dates for holding the meetings at speci¬fied places to select VLL on annual basis. Mr. Ramakanta Mohapatra, learned counsel for petitioner, while challenging Annexures-1 and 2 emphasizes that conduct of the B.D.O., in exercising his authority for fixing the date, place and venue of the meeting is contrary to the statutory provision in Section 6 and Rules 20 to 26 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 respectively (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules respectively.) Learned Standing Counsel referring to the counter and the letter of the Chief Secretary of the State, Annexure-A/4, states that such instruction was issued by the Collector in consonance with the direction contained in Annexure-A/4. It appears from Annexure-A/4 that the Chief Secretary and Chief Development Commissioner of the State of Orissa, issued the circular to all Collectors and Chief Executive Officers, Zila Parishad to take timely action for proper implementation of the schemes and due utilization of the funds within a legal framework with a sense of accountability and transparency at all levels. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of Annexure-A/4 it has been mentioned as follows : “11. Since the benefits of the scheme are intended to flow to the most deprived people, information regarding the Act and the scheme would have to be widely disseminated so that they may avail themselves of it. You would have to design an effective IEC plan for this. 12. Since the benefits of the scheme are intended to flow to the most deprived people, information regarding the Act and the scheme would have to be widely disseminated so that they may avail themselves of it. You would have to design an effective IEC plan for this. 12. It is evident that the implementation of the NREGS envisages widespread communication, detailed planning, responsive management and continuous monitoring. The scheme will be launched after the Central Government’s notification and I would urge you to pay personal attention to all preparatory action needed prior to launch as well as to its proper implementation." While placing Annexure-A/4 in the above indicated manner, learned Standing Counsel, however, fairly concedes that the Block Development Officer has no authority under the Statute to fix the time and place of meeting for selection of VLL. He, however, states that with the anxiety to get the work executed and funds utilized within the stipulated time, such an action was taken by opposite party No.4 pursuant to the direction of the Collector in Annexure-1. When the statute has vested jurisdiction with the Sarpanches and the panchayats to convene the Pali Sabha for the purpose of selection of VLL, without amendment of that provision of law, neither the State Government nor its Officer can exercise author¬ity to supersede or bye-pass such statutory provision in Section 6 of the Act and Rules 20 to 26 of the Rules. Be that as it may, in view of the provision in Section 109 of the Act, we find that Collector has the authority to take appropriate action and adopt appropriate method to carry out the progressive work for the benefit of people of the Gram Panchayat and to uplift the function of the Gram Panchayat. Non-the less, while doing so, Collector is not permitted to by-pass or supersede the statutory provision. In the present case, since Annexure-1 does not contain any direction by-passing any statuto¬ry provision, therefore, we are not inclined to quash the same and accept the same as an instruction issued under Section 109 of the Act. However, we find that the order, Annexure-2 was passed by the B.D.O.-opposite party No.4 in violation of the statutory provision of Section 6 and Rules 20 & 21 of the Rules and therefore, the same is quashed and any decision taken pursuant to that is directed not to be implemented. However, we find that the order, Annexure-2 was passed by the B.D.O.-opposite party No.4 in violation of the statutory provision of Section 6 and Rules 20 & 21 of the Rules and therefore, the same is quashed and any decision taken pursuant to that is directed not to be implemented. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Requisites by Regd. Post with A.D. be filed by next week, to communicate the order to opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 4. Petition disposed of.