IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.18080 of 2009
1. MANJU DEVI W/O SHRI UPENDRA PRASAD CHAIRMAN , ZILA
PARISHAD, EAST CHAMPARAN , R/O VILL MISHRAULIA,
P.S.CHAIRAIYA, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI
RAJ GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR , AT PATNA
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR , DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR AT PATNA
5. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION AT MUZAFFARPUR
6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM -COORDINATOR DISTRICT
PROGRAMME EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI
7. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR PANDEY , THE DEPUTY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI
8. THE DISTRICT ENGINEER ZILA PARISHAD , EAST CHAMPARAN
AT MOTIHARI
-----------
02. 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is stated to be the Chairman
of the Zila Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran. She is
aggrieved by the communication dated 8.10.2009
made by the Deputy Development-Cum-Chief
Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad, informing her
that insofar as the schemes and execution thereof
under the National Rural Employment Guarantee
Programme are concerned, the District Magistrate-
Cum-District Programme Co-coordinator, was the
competent authority to decide on issues and that she
should not correspond with the Deputy Development-
Cum-Chief Executive Officer.
2
The controversy in the present case appears
to be relating to the scope and extent for exercise of
powers in a democracy at the grass root level by
elected functionaries to be balanced with the
regulatory power of the State in the particular nature
of the present scheme funded by the Central
Government and by the State Government. Therefore
the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006
shall have to be read subservient to the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act in view of Section 28 of the
latter Act, keeping in mind the distinction under the
former Act based on its own revenues. Where the
Revenues for execution of the scheme came from the
Central Government and State Government, surely the
person who provides the Revenue retains the power for
regulatory control in accordance with law.
If a priority list of works has been prepared
by the Zila Parishad and if the priority serial is varied
and any scheme desired by the Zila parishad is not
approved by the funding authority, the petitioner has
adequate remedy before the State Government under
Section 19 of the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act. If so advised, the petitioner may
represent before the State Government which shall be
decided in accordance with law by a reasoned and
3
speaking order.
Since the matter relates to working of grass
roots democracy and developmental schemes by
generating employment, the Court expects that the
State Government shall dispose off the objections, if
any, at the earliest so that in the tussle developmental
schemes are not hampered.
The writ application stands disposed.
P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)
