Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 300 (UTT)

SOBAN SINGH RAWAT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-06-05

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2015
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harishek, Lakhera, Advocate for respondent no.5. 2. Petitioner claims himself as social worker and leader of BJP. He is resident of village Malkot, District Pauri Garhwal. Present Public Interest Litigation is filed by him for following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the resolution/order dated 27.09.2014 (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition), passed by the Block Development Officer, Block Pokhra, District Pauri Garhwal-respondent no.4 and Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayat Pokhra, District Pauri Garhwal-respondent no.5. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.1 to constitute an enquiry committee to enquire about the distribution of public money of Rs.56,75,000.00 only among 11 wards of Kshetra Panchayat Pokhra, District Pauri Garhwal and direct the enquiry committee to submit its report before this Ho’ble Court and the further direct the respondents to take a necessary action in accordance with law. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 and 3 to direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to distribute the public money i.e. Rs.56,75,000.00 equally among all 20 wards of Kshetra Panchayat Pokhra, District Pauri Garhwal. iv. Pass any other and further orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. \ v. award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.” 3. It is contended that there are 58 Gram Panchayats in Kshetra Gram Panchayat Pokhra, District Pauri Garhwal. These 58 Gram Panchayats of Pokhra have been divided into 20 wards of Kshetra Panchayat. Members of these 20 wards elect the Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayt Pokhra, District Pauri Garhwal. In 2014 election, the petitioner contested election of Pramukh Kshetra Panchayat, Pokhra. He lost to respondent no.5 by two votes. Respondent no.5 got 11 votes whereas the petitioner got 9 votes. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 56,75000/- was earmarked for several schemes of the State Government for the development of all Kshetra Panchayats, which were to be distributed equally to each ward of the Kshetra Panchayat. Respondent no.5 got 11 votes whereas the petitioner got 9 votes. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 56,75000/- was earmarked for several schemes of the State Government for the development of all Kshetra Panchayats, which were to be distributed equally to each ward of the Kshetra Panchayat. On 23.09.2014 a meeting of Kshetra Panchayat Pokhra was held in which total 5 committees were constituted and it was proposed that the meeting of Block Development Committee of Kshetra Panchayat Pokhra will be held on 27.09.2014. On 27.09.2014, the petitioner was also present in the meeting but proceedings were not recorded. After the meeting, the respondent nos.4 and 5 prepared a resolution, behind the back of the petitioner and other members, in which it was shown that Rs. 56,75,000/- were distributed for the development of 11 wards Kshetra Panchayat Pokhra but no money was allotted for rest 9 wards of the Kshetra Panchayat. It is contended that the entire proceeding was done behind the back of the petitioner and other members of Kshetra Panchayat. The petitioner came to know that the said resolution has been approved by the Chief Development Officer, Pauri Garhwal and twice cheque had also been issued to the members of 11 wards of the Kshetra Panchayat in whose favour the amount was allotted. He made a representation to District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. He also made representation to the Block Development Officer, Pokhra, Pauri Garhwal requesting them to enquire the matter and take action. According to the petitioner, 11 wards in whose favour amount was allotted are Dalmana, Nail, Pokhra, Aeroil (Ubot), Srikot, Chopra, Mayalgaon, Sald, Binamalli, Sediyadhar and Kidgadi whereas the Kshetra Panchayat in whose favour no amount was released are Gadoli, Gadri 1st, Gadri IInd, Gadri, Kol, Dantha, Majgaon, Bagdigad and Basai. In favour of Basai Rs. 1,00,000/- was released. It is also alleged that the amount of Rs. 56,75,000/- was distributed by respondent nos.4 and 5 to 11 wards of Kshetra Panchayat, Pokhra whose members supported the respondent no.5, in the election of Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayat, Pokhra and since the members of remaining 9 wards did not support respondent no.5, no amount was released in their favour. When no action was taken on the representation of the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit. When no action was taken on the representation of the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the breakup of the amount of Rs. 56,75,000/- is given in the following manner: a) Kshetra Panchayat Development Fund Year 2012-13 Rs. 6,55,000/- b) Kshetra Panchayat Development Fund Year 2013-14 Rs. 14,00,000/- c) State Finance Commission Year 2013-14 Rs. 15,60,000/- d) 13 th Finance Commission Year 2012-13 Rs. 8,40,000/- e) 13 th Finance Commission Year 2013-14 Rs. 12,20,000/- Total Rs. 56,75,000/- It is contended by the respondents, that as per para 4 of the Government order No.489/XII/05/86(10)/05 dated 13.06.2005 only Kshetra Panchayat Development Fund can be distributed equally to all Kshetra Panchayat wards. It is also contended that 9 wards, namely, Bagdigad, Gadri 1st, Gadri 2nd, Gadoli, Dantha, Gadri, Kola, Chamnou and Basai were already included in the Kshetra Panchayat Development Plan, 2012-13. Regarding distribution of Rs. 14,00,000/- of Kshetra Panchayat Development Fund to the said 9 wards for the year 2013-14 is concerned, it is contended that no fund could be allocated to them in absence of any work plan submitted by the said wards. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the resolution was prepared in the meeting of Planning Committee of Kshetra Panchayat on 23.09.2014 and same was approved by the Block Development Council on 27.09.2014 in which the petitioner was also present, however he did not choose to sign the attendance register. The said resolution was subsequently affirmed in the meeting of Block Development Council held on 07.01.2015 in which the petitioner was also present. In supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, it is stated that Kshetra Panchayat Development Fund is distributed equally as far as possible in accordance to para 4 of the Government Order No.489 dated 13.06.2005 and work plan of Kshetra Panchayat is prepared and submitted annually as per Section 86 of the Kshetra Panchayat Act. For the year 2013-14 the work plan of aforesaid 9 wards was not prepared as the Kshetra Panchayat was dissolved w.e.f. 12th October, 2013. In paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 have given breakup of funds allocated to the 9 wards in Kshetra Panchayat Development Plan 2012-13. For the year 2013-14 the work plan of aforesaid 9 wards was not prepared as the Kshetra Panchayat was dissolved w.e.f. 12th October, 2013. In paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 have given breakup of funds allocated to the 9 wards in Kshetra Panchayat Development Plan 2012-13. Same is reproduced below:- S.No. Name of Ward Amount of (Rs.) 1. Bagdigad 65,000+70,000/- 1,35,000 2. Gadri 1 st 45,000+45,000+45,000 1,35,000 3. Gadri 2 nd 45,000+45,000+45,000 1,35,000 4. Gadoli 70,000+65,000 1,35,000 5. Dantha 70,000+65,000 1,35,000 6. Gadri Kola 65,000+70,000 1,35,000 7. Kolla 1,35,000 1,35,000 8. Chamnou 1,35,000 1,35,000 9. Basai 65,000+70,000 1,35,000 Total 12,15,000 6. The private respondent no.5 has also filed counter affidavit in which he has stated that since the petitioner lost the election against him, the writ petition has been filed to score the political rivalry. It is contended that the petition is not public interest petition and is a purely personal interest petition and same deserves to be dismissed on this ground. In the counter affidavit, the respondent no.5 has also stated that meeting of Kshetra Panchayat was held on 23.09.2014 in which Planning Committee and Development Committee were constituted. In the said meeting Planning Committee passed a resolution regarding various development schemes for the Kshetra Panchayat Pokhar and distributed the money for the said development schemes from the fund provided by the Finance Commission, State Finance Commission, Second State Finance Commission. Resolution passed in the meeting was duly approved by the Development Committee on 27.09.2014. In the meeting of Block Development Committee dated 07.01.2015, said resolution and proposals were confirmed. In the said meeting, the petitioner was himself present and put signature without any protest, therefore, the petitioner has no right to raise any objection in the matter. It is also contended that the petition has been filed by the petitioner only to defame respondent no.2. It is stated that on 27.09.2014, the petitioner was very much present in the meeting but due to political rivalry he did not sign the resolution passed by the Committee. It is also contended that in the meeting held on 23.09.2014, the petitioner was present in the meeting but he walked out of the said meeting alongwith his supporter. It is stated that on 27.09.2014, the petitioner was very much present in the meeting but due to political rivalry he did not sign the resolution passed by the Committee. It is also contended that in the meeting held on 23.09.2014, the petitioner was present in the meeting but he walked out of the said meeting alongwith his supporter. It is also contended that voting is by secret ballot, then how the petitioner came to know that members of particular 9 wards voted for him and members of remaining 11 wards had voted in favour of respondent no.5. 7. It is contended by Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, that Section 86 of the Act stands breached. Section 86 reads as follows: “86. Preparation of plan by Kshettra Panchayat. – (1) A Kshettra Panchayat shall prepare every year a development plan for the Khand after including the development plans of the Gram Panchayats of the Khand. (2) The plan referred to in sub-section (1) shall be prepared by the Karya Samiti of the Kshettra Panchayat with the help of the Khand Vikas Adhikari, the Vitta Evam Vikas Samiti, and the Samata Samiti in the manner prescribed and submit it to the Kshettra Panchayat. (3) The Kshettra Panchayat shall consider the plan and may approve it with or without any modification. (4) The Khand Vikas Adhikari shall submit the plan as approved by the Kshettra Panchayat to the Zila Panchayat before such date as may be prescribed.” According to him, even according to the respondents, there was no plan and, therefore, the respondents have acted illegally. 8. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent, refers to the statements in his counter affidavit that the Planning and Development Committee had passed a resolution and also the meeting of the Block Development Committee had approved it. 9. The learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that acting upon the representation of the petitioner, a committee consisting of District Development Officer, District Panchayat Raj Officer and Principal Extension Training Centre, Pauri was constituted to enquire into the matter. The said committee held its meeting on 27.02.2015 and submitted its report to District Magistrate. Now the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and the petition deserves to be rejected. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The said committee held its meeting on 27.02.2015 and submitted its report to District Magistrate. Now the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and the petition deserves to be rejected. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that 9 wards whose members had not supported the respondent no.5, have been ignored and no fund was released in favour of these wards. The official respondents in their counter affidavit have clearly stated that for the year 2013-14 no fund could be allocated to 9 wards in absence of any work plan submitted by them. These respondents have further stated that Kshetra Panchayat Development Fund is being distributed equally as far as possible in accordance with para 4 of Government Order dated 13.06.2015. We do not find any malafide in the action of respondents in allocation of fund. We are in agreement with respondent no.5 that when provision of secret ballot is there, nobody can know who actually voted for him. Moreover, the complaint made by the petitioner was entertained by the District Magistrate, Pauri as a committee of 3 officers was constituted by him and the said committee has already submitted its report. Therefore, nothing more is required to be done. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue remedies against the decision of the committee as available to him. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.