Petitioner challenged the Block Development Officer's sanction of financial approval for works previously cancelled by the Administration and Establishment Committee. The Court found the sanction within budget limits and disposed of the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed; all pending applications stood disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJD/013310]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3481/2023
Vinod Poonia S/o Anoop Poonia, Aged About 39 Years, Gagadwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu At Present Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Manjeet Godara |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Kunal Upadyay for |
| Mr. | Sunil Beniwal,AAG |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 03/05/2023 Pronounced on 18/05/2023
“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
(2 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
Administration and Establishment Committee, Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh District Churu, vide 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.”
2.1. 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
(3 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
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. 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
(4 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
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.
(5 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
“ 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.
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.
(6 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
that the respondent no.3 was hand in gloves with the MLA of the ruling Party.
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
(7 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
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.
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
(8 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
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.
(9 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
ifjf”k’B & 1 iz”kklfud Lohd`fr
| Ø-la- | dk;Z@vkbZVe dk fooj.k | Lohd`rdrkZ vf lfefr ftldks fufgr gS |
/kdkjh@ 'kfDr;ka 'kfDr;ksa dh ¼jkf'k : uohu Lohd`fr |
foRrh; lhek i;ksa esa) j[kj[kko@ ejEer |
'[email protected];ka |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 s s |
xzke iapk;r iapk;r ds ikl jkf'k |
¼xzke miyC/k 5-00 yk[k rd |
0-50 yk[k | ' [email protected] ;ka Øa-la- 1 ls 12 ;Fkkor ykxw gksaxhA ,oa fuEu Z |
| ujxk d vfrfjDr½ | fodkl vf/kdkjh lfefr ds ikl jkf'k½ |
¼iapk;r miyC/k 5-00 yk[k rd |
2-00 yk[k | vfrfjDr 'kr 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 |
ifjf”k’B & 2 foRrh; Lohd`fr ¼la”kksf/kr lfgr½
Ø-ladk;Z@vkbZVe dk fooj.k Lohd`rdrkZ vf/kdkjh@ 'kfDr;ksa dh foRrh; lhek '[email protected];ka
(10 of 10)
[2023/RJJD/013310]
[CW-3481/2023]
| lfefr fufgr |
ftldks 'kfDr;ka gS |
¼jkf'k : uohu Lohd`fr |
i;ksa esa) 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 s s |
xzke ia ¼xzke miyC/k |
pk;r iapk;r ds ikl jkf'k |
5-00 yk[k rd |
0-50 yk[k | ' [email protected] ;ka Øa-la- 1 ls 10 ;Fkkor ykxw gksaxhA |
| ujxk d vfrfjDr½ | fodkl lfefr jkf'k½ |
vf/kdkjh ¼iapk;r ds ikl miyC/k |
5-00 yk[k rd |
2-00 yk[k |
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Block Development Officer had the authority to sanction financial approval for works cancelled by the Administration and Establishment Committee within the budget limits prescribed by the ci
Whether the cancellation of financial approval by the Administration and Establishment Committee was legal under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Poonia
The State Of Rajasthan
The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu
Amarjeet Singh
Krishna Poonia
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
