Loading...

Manju Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 February, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Manju Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 February, 2011
                     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.)
 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information