JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, call for the relevant record in the present matter and by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction: i. the action of the respondents while sanctioning the financial approval which was earlier cancelled by the Samiti, Rajgarh impugned order dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure-12) passed by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh may kindly be declared per se illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and against the principles of natural justice and the same may kindly quashed and set aside, and/or ii. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner. iii. The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, the Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, District Churu had convened a General Body Meeting for preparation of the Annual Plan for the year 2021-2022 of 15th Finance Commission, and a list of 343 Annual Work Plans was prepared by the General Body. 2.1. The said Annual Plan was approved by the Administration and Establishment Committee of the concerned Panchayat Samiti, giving approval for annual work only sequence-wise, which has been prepared by the General Body, as per the Circular dated 17.09.2017 issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan. 2.2. The Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan however, issued a standing order dated 06.04.2016, whereby the earlier circular dated 17.09.2014 was amended, only to the extent of power of extending financial sanction. 2.3. Thereafter the respondent no.3 (Block Development Officer), in his capacity, sanctioned the financial approval for as many as 39 work orders, which were not approved by the Administration and Establishment Committee of the concerned Panchayat Samiti. In a subsequent development, the above-mentioned action came to the knowledge of the petitioner, and a meeting of the Administration and Establishment Committee was convened on 22.01.2022, wherein resolution no.3 was taken for cancellation of the financial approval for the said 39 work orders, as sanctioned by respondent no.3. The Committee approved the resolution, thus cancelling the aforesaid sanction. 2.4. In a subsequent development, the above-mentioned action came to the knowledge of the petitioner, and a meeting of the Administration and Establishment Committee was convened on 22.01.2022, wherein resolution no.3 was taken for cancellation of the financial approval for the said 39 work orders, as sanctioned by respondent no.3. The Committee approved the resolution, thus cancelling the aforesaid sanction. 2.4. However, against the aforementioned action of the respondent no.1, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by preferring a writ petition, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2526/2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2022, while directing the petitioner to file a representation, alongwith requisite documents, before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner submitted representation dated 17.02.2022, alongwith all the necessary documents, before the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for redressal of his grievances; however, no heed was paid to the same. 2.5. Subsequently however, in its meeting dated 22.02.2022, the Administration and Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad, Churu has passed the resolution submitted by the petitioner and a Committee headed by five persons was constituted, and directed to submit an inspection report regarding disputed financial approval sanctioned by the respondent no.3, and further directions were given to stop the work, while maintaining the status quo to the extent of the sanction of financial approval of the said 39 work orders in question. 2.6. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu sent a communication dated 26.04.2022 to respondent no.3, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the respondent no.3 had no right to take a different decision, than the one taken by the Administration and Establishment Committee, and thus the financial approval sanctioned by respondent no.3 had been cancelled. 2.7. Subsequently however, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 07.02.2023 again sanctioning the financial approval of 38 works, which earlier had been cancelled by the Administration and Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh, District Churu. Thus, aggrieved by the said impugned action of the respondent and the impugned order dated 07.02.2023, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Thus, aggrieved by the said impugned action of the respondent and the impugned order dated 07.02.2023, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of cancellation of the sanction of financial approval of the disputed works by the Administration and Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh, District Churu was not recalled or reviewed; even then respondent no.3 again sanctioned the financial approval of the disputed works, despite the fact that the same was not admissible in law, according to Section 59 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1994’); the said Section 59 reads as undeer: “59. Power to revise decisions of standing committees - (1) A Panchayat, a Panchayat Samiti or, as the case may be, a Zila Parishad] may on application made to it or otherwise, examinee the record of any decision of any of its Standing Committee and may confirm, reveres or modify such decision: Provided that no action under this Sub-section shall be initiated after the expiration of three months from the date of the decisions sought to be revised. (2) The order [the Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or, as the case may be, the Zila Parishad] under Sub-Section (1), reversing or modifying a decision of its standing committee must be supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of its members failing which the decision of the standing committee shall stand.” 3.1. It was further submitted that the action of the respondent no.3 was against the provision of the Section 33 (e) (f) (g) of the Act of 1994. In furtherance, it was submitted that the impugned order was passed in an arbitrary manner without following the provisions of Rule 35 (1)(f), 333 and 334 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, and Section 81 of Act of 1994; thus deserved to be quashed and set aside. As per learned counsel, as per the said provisions of law, the concerned Pradhan, as in the present case, was empowered to supervise and monitor the entire works of the Block Development Officer. 3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned MLA, under whose undue influence the respondent no.3 was discharging his duties, had made a complaint to the Minister of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur against the present petitioner. 3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned MLA, under whose undue influence the respondent no.3 was discharging his duties, had made a complaint to the Minister of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur against the present petitioner. Thus, it is evident that the respondent no.3 was hand in gloves with the MLA of the ruling Party. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that a bare perusal of Section 59 (1) & (2) of the Act of 1994 makes it clear that a Panchayat, a Panchayat Samiti or, as the case may be, a Zila Parishad, may on application made to it or otherwise examine the record of any decision of any of its Standing Committee and may confirm, reveres or modify such decision. 4.1. However, as per learned counsel, in the present matter, the petitioner placed reliance on the Section and pleaded that Administration and Establishment Committee (which itself is a Standing Committee) had power to reverse, review or modify a decision. 4.2. It was further submitted that all disputed works in question formed a part of the 343 works, which were sanctioned by the Panchayat Samiti itself, and thus, when Panchayat Samiti itself had taken a decision and sanctioned the works, the action of Administration and Establishment Committee in cancellation of financial approval of the disputed works in question was illegal, arbitrary and beyond its power. 4.3. It was further submitted that the Action Plan was prepared and Budget was sanctioned for the financial year 2021-2022 (343 construction works); subsequently Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan issued a standing order dated 06.04.2016 by which the earlier circular dated 17.09.2014 was amended to the extent of power of extending financial sanction but the other conditions remained the same. 4.4. In furtherance, it was submitted that a bare perusal of the circular revealed that the above mentioned 343 works had a budget of both more than Rs.5 Lakhs and less than Rs. 5 Lakhs and various authorities were authorized to grant Administrative Sanction for the works that have been sanctioned in the Annual Action Plan. Thus, for the said purpose, the respondent no.3 was authorized to issue administrative sanction for a work whose budget was upto Rs. 5 Lakhs, in accordance with the Circular dated 06.04.2016. 5 Lakhs and various authorities were authorized to grant Administrative Sanction for the works that have been sanctioned in the Annual Action Plan. Thus, for the said purpose, the respondent no.3 was authorized to issue administrative sanction for a work whose budget was upto Rs. 5 Lakhs, in accordance with the Circular dated 06.04.2016. 4.5 It was also submitted that in furtherance of the administrative, technical and financial sanction granted by the respondent no.3, the Gram Panchayat had initiated the works and such works had already been completed, and it was only after the issuance of the sanction between 27.12.2021 and 09.01.2022 that at a later stage in the meetings dated 21.01.2022 and 22.02.2022, the Administration and Establishment Committee decided to cancel the financial sanction. Thus, the action of the petitioner and the Administration and Establishment Committee in illegally cancelling the works and not disbursing the money, clearly affected the workings of Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan. 4.6. It was further submitted that the petitioner prior to filing the present writ petition had also preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2526/2022 and the said petition was filed with the same grievance that the respondent no.3 had issued financial sanction beyond his power and that the Administrative and Establishment Committee had cancelled the financial sanction. In furtherance, it was submitted that this Hon’ble Court had decided the earlier writ petition on 15.02.2022, with the observation that numerous questions of facts were involved therein, and thus, the Hon’ble Court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, as prayed for therein. Thus, the present writ petition was barred by the principles of res judicata and deserves dismissal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, District Churu convened a General Body Meeting for preparation of the Annual plan for the year 2021-2022 of 15th Finance Commission and the General Body prepared a list of 343 Annual work plans. Thereafter, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan issued a standing order dated 06.04.2016 by which the earlier circular dated 17.09.2014 was amended only to the extent of power of extending financial sanction. Thereafter, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan issued a standing order dated 06.04.2016 by which the earlier circular dated 17.09.2014 was amended only to the extent of power of extending financial sanction. Subsequently, the respondent no.3 vide order 07.02.2023 sanctioned financial approval for as many as 38 works orders, which were previously cancelled by the Administrative and Establishment Committee, on account of not being approved by the said Committee. Aggrieved by the said sanctioning order, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 7. This Court further observes that the 38 disputed works form part of the list of 343 works so prepared by the General Body. It is evident that the works have budget of both more than Rs. 5 Lakhs and less than Rs. 5 Lakhs. Vide Circular dated 17.09.2014, various authorities were authorized to grant administrative sanction for the work that have been sanctioned in the Annual Action Plan and the Block Development Officer (respondent no.3 herein) was authorized to issue administrative sanction for works where budget was upto Rs.2.5 Lakhs, which was later increased to Rs.5 Lakhs on 06.04.2016. 8. This Court also observes that none of the disputed works have a budget, of above Rs.5 Lakhs. Therefore, the sanction of financial approval was well within limits of respondent no.3. 8. This Court also observes that none of the disputed works have a budget, of above Rs.5 Lakhs. Therefore, the sanction of financial approval was well within limits of respondent no.3. The relevant portion of the amended circular dated 06.04.2016 is reproduced as hereunder: Ikfjf'k"B & 1 iz'kklfud Lohd`fr Ø-la- dk;Z@vkbZVe dk fooj.k Lohd`rdrkZ vf/kdkjh@ lfefr ftldks 'kfDr;ka fufgr gSs 'kfDr;ksa dh foRrh; lhek ¼jkf'k :i;ksa es½ 'krsZ@fVIif.k;k uohu Lohd`fr j[kj[kko@ ejEer 1 2 3 4 5 6 1&v fuekZ.k dk;Z dh iz'kklfud Lohd`fr ¼ewy½ ¼fo/kk;d] lkaln dks"k o egkRek xka/kh ujsxk ds vfrfjDr½ xzke iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ikl miyC/k jkf'k 5-00 yk[k rd 0-50 yk[k 'krsZa@fVIif.k;ka Øa-la- 1 ls 12 ;Fkkor ykxw gksaxhA ,oa fuEu vfrfjDr 'krZ la[;k&13 Hkh ykxw gksxhA 13 lM+d fuekZ.k dk;Z gsrq futh Hkwfe ij izpfyr vke jkLrksa ds fy, Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr dkLrdkjksa ls lgefr] fu;ekuqlkj 'kiFk i= ysus ds mijkUr dk;Z lEiknu fd;k tk ldsxkA fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼iapk;r lfefr ds ikl miyC/k jkf'k½ 5-00 yk[k rd 2-00 yk[k ifjf'k"B & 2 foRrh; Lohd`fr ¼la'kksf/kr lfgr½ Ø-la- dk;Z@vkbZVe dk fooj.k Lohd`rdrkZ vf/kdkjh@lfefr ftldks 'kfDr;ka fufgr gS ¼jkf'k :i;ksa es½ uohu Lohd`fr j[kj[kko@ ejEer 1 2 3 4 5 6 1&v fuekZ.k dk;Z dh foRrh; Lohd`fr ¼ewy½ ¼fo/kk;d o lkaln dks"k] egkRek xka/kh ujsxk ds vfrfjDr½ xzke iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ikl miyC/k jkf'k 5-00 yk[k rd 0-50 yk[k 'krsZa@fVIif.k;ka Øa-la- 1 ls 10 ;Fkkor ykxw gksaxh fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼iapk;r lfefr ds ikl miyC/k jkf'k½ 5-00 yk[k rd 2-00 yk[k 9. This Court further observes that since the 343 works were at the very inception sanctioned in the General Body Meeting of Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, District Churu for preparation of the Annual Plan for the year 2021-2022 of 15th Finance Commission, therefore the Block Development Officer (respondent no.3 herein) sanctioned the financial approval of the works in question out of this list of 343 works. 10. This Court also observes that in pursuance of the approval of Block Development Officer (respondent no.3), the Gram Panchayat initiated the works and some of the works have already been completed; however, money for the same has not been disbursed. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.