Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6678 of 2012 ====================================================== Haider Ali S/o Late Sheikh Insan R/o Village- Khulni, P.O.- Pachrukhi, Gram Panchayat - Khulni, P.S. and Block- Sahkund, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Rural Development, Patna 2. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur 4. Programme Officer, Sahkund Block, District- Bhagalpur 5. D.D.C.-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad (District Board), Bhagalpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, AC to G.P.10 For Zila Parishad : Mr.Nikesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 7 24-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for the Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondents to cancel the Scheme known as “Sahkund Rauta Bandh Se Lekar Chandan Nadi Tak Bandh Ki Marammati Avam Guardwall Ka Nirman Karya” which is going to be implemented through Zila Parishad Scheme after its approval and direct the respondents to approve the said Scheme through Gram Panchayat. Briefly stated the dispute in the present matter is for implementation of certain Schemes within the Gram Panchayat,
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.6678 of 2012 (7) dt.24-07-2013 2 Khulni under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner, who is the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Khulni, under Block Sahkund, District Bhagalpur, is aggrieved that while the Scheme was approved by the authorities under the MNREGA but the implementation of the same has been given to the Zila Parishad and not to the Gram Panchayat.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 165 of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 any Scheme or Project which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat has to be executed by the Gram Panchayat and only inter-Gram Panchayat Scheme or inter-Block Scheme come within the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad. It is thus contended by learned counsel that the present Scheme being admittedly wholly within the territory of the Gram Panchayat, Khulni ought to have been implemented by the Gram Panchayat and not by the Zila Parishad. The State respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the matter. Although there is no counter affidavit on behalf of Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur but learned counsel for the Zila Parishad submits that the Zila Parishad has already provided necessary inputs to the State authorities and therefore he does not intend to Patna High Court CWJC No.6678 of 2012 (7) dt.24-07-2013 3 file any separate counter affidavit in the matter. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the State the stand taken is that the Scheme was in the Annual Action Plan of the Zila Parishad for the year 2011-12 and it is also in the Scheme of Khulni Panchayat in the year 2012-13. It is, however, submitted that it is for the District Programme Coordinator to fix up the executing agency for execution of the work and the only limitation upon the same as per the guidelines dated 22.7.2011 issued by the Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar is that the responsibility of at least 50% of the projects which fall within the Gram Panchayat shall be given by the District Programme Coordinator to the Gram Panchayat, as is evident from paragraph 1.23 of the said guidelines. It is thus urged by learned counsel for the State and for the Zila Parishad that no right of the petitioner can be said to have been affected by mere allotment of one of the Schemes falling exclusively within the Gram Panchayat, Khulni to the Zila Parishad unless the petitioner is able to show that at least 50% of the Schemes have not been allotted to the Gram Panchayat in terms of the said guidelines. Section-16 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 which deals with the Patna High Court CWJC No.6678 of 2012 (7) dt.24-07-2013 4 responsibility of the Gram Panchayat in the matter of recommending, executing and supervising such works under the Scheme is in the following terms : “16. Responsibilities of the Gram Panchayats.- (1) The Gram Panchayat shall be responsible for identification of the projects in the Gram Panchayat area to be taken up under a Scheme as per the recommendations of the Gram Sabha and the Ward Sabhas and for executing and supervising such work. (2) A Gram Panchayat may take up any project under a Scheme within the area of the Gram Panchayat as may be sanctioned by the Programme Offier. (3) Every Gram Panchayat shall, after considering the recommendations of the Gram Sabha and the Ward Sabhas, prepare a development plan and maintain a shelf of possible works to be taken up under the Scheme as and when demand for work arises. (4) The Gram Panchayat shall forward its proposals for the development projects including the order of priority between different works the Programme Officer for scrutiny and preliminary approval prior to the commencement of the year in which it is proposed to be executed. to (5) The Programme Officer shall allot at least fifty per cent of the works in terms of its cost under a Scheme the Gram Panchayats. implemented through to be (6) The Programme Officer shall supply each Gram Panchayat with- (a) the muster rolls for the works sanctioned to be executed by it; and (b) a list of employment opportunities available elsewhere to the residents of the Gram Panchayat. (7) The Gram Panchayat shall allocate employment opportunities among the applicants and ask them to report for work. (8) The works taken up by a Gram Panchayat under a Scheme shall meet the required technical standards and measurements.” It is evident from sub-Section (5) of Section 16 that the Patna High Court CWJC No.6678 of 2012 (7) dt.24-07-2013 5 Programme Officer is responsible to allot at least 50% of the works in terms of its cost under a Scheme to be implemented through the Gram Panchayats. It is evident that the guidelines dated 22.7.2011 issued by the Government of Bihar in the Rural Development Department in paragraph 1.23 merely reiterate what is already provided under the Act itself. Aforesaid being the position, there is substantial force in the submission of learned counsels for the State and the Zila Parishad that the petitioner can only approach this Court when he can make out a case that less than 50% of the Schemes have been given to the Gram Panchayat for execution. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has sought to argue that under Section 16(1) of the Act it is the responsibility of the Gram Panchayat not only to identify the projects in the Gram Panchayat area to be taken up under the Scheme but also for executing and supervising of such works and if the exception is made to the same by giving the execution of the Scheme to any other agency then reasons must be shown for such deprivation otherwise such action would be arbitrary. I am unable to accept any such submission which is wholly contrary to the scheme of the Act in general and Section 16 in particular. Section 16 has to be read as a whole and sub- Patna High Court CWJC No.6678 of 2012 (7) dt.24-07-2013 6 Section (1) thereof cannot be read in isolation without looking into what has been provided by sub-Section(5). There is nothing under the Act to show that at the time of allotment of works, which is purely an administrative work, any reason has to be shown by the Programme Officer as to why the Scheme in question has not been allotted for execution to the Gram Panchayat. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner on this count must fail. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/-