JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri Naveen Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Roy, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Perused the record. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.5.2008 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 5 lacs which was advanced from the fund of Member of Parliament for local development in a district (For short MPLAD) to which the concerned Member represents, failing which it is directed that coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner taking recourse to the provisions prescribed for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the basis of the proposal forwarded by the then Members of Parliament representing district Mau a parliamentary constituency, vide letter dated 2.1.2006 for disbursement of amount of Rs. 10 lacs for construction of the school, to the petitioner society which runs Harijan Primary Pathshala situate at Chakaudi Sultani. It appears that after preliminary enquiry/investigation was conducted in the matter and the revenue records were submitted by the petitioner the disbursement of first installment of Rs. 5 lacs i.e., 50 per cent of the total amount was made on 31.2.2006. Although, the first disbursement had taken place after the preliminary enquiry got conducted relating to the matter as to the eligibility of the petitioner in getting aid for the purposes of the construction of the building of the school from MPLAD fund, some further enquiry was conducted and a letter was forwarded by the Magistrate, Mohammadabad, Mau on 6.12.2006 requiring the petitioner to submit the computerized copy of Revenue Extract/Annual Register relating the land in question as there appeared to be difference in the computerized record and manually prepared record. It was admitted that the school was situate on Plot No. 192 however, certain part of the land that belonged to the school to the extent of 25 kadis fell in village Utpal, an adjoining village and thus a conclusion was drawn by the District Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner got the disbursement of fund by misrepresentation and fraud in getting the document prepared and submitted, which if had come to the knowledge of the authorities the disbursement of the land could not have been made. Consequently, an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner for committing such alleged fraud under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. as Case Crime No. 182A/2008 on 25.2.2008. However, in the meanwhile, the impugned order was also got passed on the basis of some directives issued by the Chief Development Officer, Mau dated 23.2.2008 to get the amount of first installment, disbursed to the petitioner, recovered. It is in this light that the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay back the amount failing which coercive measures shall be adopted for recovery of the same. 4. The argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the order is that the school infact is situate over Plot No. 192 which is recorded in the name of the society that runs the Institution and which falls in the village within the territorial limits of district Mau represented by the then Member of Parliament, Sri Daroga Prasad Saroj. He submits that merely because certain small piece of land falls in an adjoining village falling in an adjoining district as two revenue villages are bordering each other, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed any mis-representation or fraud in getting the amount disbursed from the MPLAD fund. He has drawn our attention to the computerized khatauni which is produced as Annexure No. 3 in the writ petition in which Plot No. 192 besides Plot Nos. 194 and 193 was originally recorded in the name of Ram Awadh son of Narman, the person in whose name the society exists and the land has subsequently stood transferred in the name of the institution. The khatauni clearly demonstrates that the land of Plot No. 192 in the fasli year of 1409 exists in revenue village, Chakaudi. Year 2002 corresponds to the said fasli year and so khatauni shows record of land, prior to the year of disbursement of the fund and corroborates the fact that the land very well stood in the revenue village Chakaudi of district Mau. Year 2002 corresponds to the said fasli year and so khatauni shows record of land, prior to the year of disbursement of the fund and corroborates the fact that the land very well stood in the revenue village Chakaudi of district Mau. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that this fact that the plot in question falls in revenue village Chakaudi of district Mau has not been disputed and hence, it has been vehemently urged that the order has been passed completely mis-interpreting the revenue records of the land in question, at least, the finding of mis-representation of fraud is completely misplaced and ill-founded and thus according to him, the order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the very act of the petitioner of offering a land in exchange as has come up from a document filed alongwith supplementary affidavit demonstrates that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that certain part of the land stood fell in adjoining village which is within the territorial limits of district Azamgarh and, therefore, a fund meant for MPLAD could not have been utilized for a building to be constructed over the land, part of which fell in an adjoining district. He further submits that the objection has been raised regarding the exchange and, therefore, to that extent building have been constructed over the land which fell in an adjoining district, the order cannot be faulted with. 6. However, we find that while the writ petition was entertained initially an order was passed in which time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents on his request to file counter-affidavit and yet no counter-affidavit has been filed till date and the State has virtually failed to defend the order impugned in the present writ petition. 7. However, we find that while the writ petition was entertained initially an order was passed in which time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents on his request to file counter-affidavit and yet no counter-affidavit has been filed till date and the State has virtually failed to defend the order impugned in the present writ petition. 7. Apart from the above fact we are of the considered opinion that if the major portion of the school and the land which fell in the revenue village of district Mau which was represented by the then Member of Parliament, Sri Daroga Prasad and on whose recommendation the fund was disbursed for the construction of the school over Plot No. 192 merely because certain part of the land measured as 25 kadis in the order impugned has fallen in the adjoining village, it will not amount to mis-representation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. We further find though an enquiry has been made in the matter but there is no whisper anywhere that any enquiry was made from the then Member of Parliament as to under what circumstances the recommendation was made. We are of the opinion that once a Member of Parliament has made recommendation for disbursement of the fund meant for the construction and development purposes in the village concerned which fell in the territorial limits of the district which he was representing some sanctity has to be attached to such letter and it was not open for the Collector to take into account irrelevant considerations to record a finding of fraud and misrepresentation. 8. A Member of Parliament in our representative form of Government holds a very sacrosanct position and his recommendation cannot be a matter of administrative enquiry unless he himself complains of being mis-represented/mislead. One who holds a responsible position after being elected by people to parliament, is the best judge of development activities in his parliamentary constituency and if civil servants and Government officials are permitted to question their recommendations in respect of development activity in their parliamentary constituencies, it will erode faith of people in our parliamentary system of democracy. One who holds a responsible position after being elected by people to parliament, is the best judge of development activities in his parliamentary constituency and if civil servants and Government officials are permitted to question their recommendations in respect of development activity in their parliamentary constituencies, it will erode faith of people in our parliamentary system of democracy. We may, therefore, hold that no recommendation qua MPLAD if made by a member of parliament for his constituency is subject to enquiry by administrative authorities unless the Member of Parliament himself asks for the same, however monitoring and enquiry regarding consumption of fund released under MPLAD is always subject to administrative enquiry in the event of complaint. This is however, not the case in hand. 9. The findings in our considered opinion is completely misplaced and ill-founded as has been rightly argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 10.5.2008 is hereby quashed and the present petition stands allowed.