Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 184 (PAT)

Sweta Devi W/o Sri Bipin Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2011-01-28

NAVIN SINHA

body2011
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of Respondents 4 to 6 on 27.1.2011. The Registry shall place it on record. The Court requested the Counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up proceedings on that ground. The office shall retain a xerox copy of the counter affidavit placed during submission. 3. The petitioner is stated to be Pramukh of Shambhuganj Block Panchayat Samiti, District-Banka. She alleges unauthorized interference by the Block Development Officer in financial matters contrary to Section 42 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2008 while the BDO relies on his powers under Section 61 of the Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that under Section 42 the Pramukh exercises supervision and control over the BDO for securing implementation of resolutions and/or decisions of the Panchayat Samiti. The Pramukh exercises over all control on financial and executive administration of the Panchayat Samiti and any decision with respect to any payment from the funds of the. Samiti requires order of. the Samiti. Therefore, the BDO cannot effect any withdrawal from the funds of the Samiti without approval of the petitioner-Pramukh who acts as the Executive arm of the Samiti. 5. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that the BDO has made withdrawals from the funds of the Panchayat Samiti only on issues where the funds have been sanctioned by the Panchayat Samiti. Once the Samiti has sanctioned the funds, the BDO fs not required to obtain individual approval of the Pramukh. 6. Seemingly non-issues have been dragged as litigation before this Court having vital implications for functioning of grass root democracy. 7. There shall lie a distinction between funds sanctioned by the Samiti enbloc for a scheme and individual withdrawal to be made there under from time to time. The mere fact that the Panchayat Samiti may have sanctioned enbloc funds for a scheme does not vest powers in the BDO to suo motu start withdrawing the amount at his discretion from time to time in exercise of powers under Section 61(f). The mere fact that the Panchayat Samiti may have sanctioned enbloc funds for a scheme does not vest powers in the BDO to suo motu start withdrawing the amount at his discretion from time to time in exercise of powers under Section 61(f). A conjoint reading of Section 42 and Section 61 manifests that primary authority and power with regard to the funds of the Samiti vests in the Panchayat Samiti which acts through the Pramukh as its Chief Executive. The BDO is but an executive agent for implementation of such schemes. That does not authorize him to start acting at his whims for withdrawal of funds from the Panchayat Samiti at his discretion. If that were to be so, it may virtually affect the Panchayat Samiti which shall then have no control or supervision over the scheme and the expenditures being incurred on the scheme by the BDO. The BDO shaft then in effect vitiate grass root democracy by turning it into his private fiefdom to act in a manner that he wishes. 8. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms when it is expected that such issues shall now be resolved appropriately at the State Government fevei in the Department of Panchayat Raj as policy matters rather than thrusting it as litigation before this Court notwithstanding that the Court may have pronounced on the issue. 9. The writ application stands disposed.