Vinod Poonia vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5950 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26068-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 479/2023

Vinod Poonia W/o Anoop Poonia, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Gagadwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu At Present Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.

3. Amarjeet Singh, Presently Working On The Post Of Development Officer At Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, District Churu.

4. Krishna Poonia W/o Virendra Poonia, At Present Mla, Constituency Rajgarh, District Churu.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Manjeet Godara



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment / Order

17/08/2023

This intra court appeal is filed by the appellant being

aggrieved with the order dated 18.5.2023 passed by the learned

Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has

been dismissed.

The appellant, who is the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti

Rajgarh, District Churu, has filed the writ petition against granting

[2023:RJ-JD:26068-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-479/2023]

of financial approval by the Block Development Officer of

Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh (for short 'the BDO') for

construction/development works for different villages falling in the

jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh.

The main contention raised by the appellant in the writ

petition is that the Administration and Establishment Committee of

Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh has cancelled the financial sanction

granted by the BDO, however despite that, the BDO has

proceeded further and released amount for the said

construction/development works. It is also contended that though

the BDO was entitled to grant financial sanction for

construction/development works only up to Rs.2,50,000/-, but he

has granted financial sanction of works which are more than

Rs.2,50,000/-.

It appears that before filing the present appeal, the appellant

had filed SBCWP No.2526/2022 before this Court, which came to

be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated

15.2.2022 while granting liberty to the appellant to file a

representation before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department

along with requisite documents, with a further direction to the

concerned Secretary to look into the matter and if the assertions

made by the appellant are found to be correct, appropriate action

shall be taken against the BDO.

As per the appellant, she moved a detailed representation

before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, however, the

same has not been decided or either no heed was paid to the

appellant's representation.

[2023:RJ-JD:26068-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-479/2023]

It is contended that the financial sanction granted by the

BDO is illegal as the same is not approved by the Administration

and Establishment Committee as provided under Section 59 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the

respondent-State, wherein it is specifically contended that the

construction/development works, for which, the financial sanction

was granted by the BDO, were duly sanctioned by the Panchayat

Samiti in its general body meeting while approving the annual

plan. It is also stated on behalf of the State that the financial

sanction granted by the BDO was in relation to the

construction/development works pertaining to Rs.5,00,000/- only

and the same was very much in consonance with the standing

order of the Government of Rajasthan dated 6.4.2016, whereby

the power of the BDO of granting approval for the

construction/development works has been enhanced upto

Rs.5,00,000/-.

The learned Single Judge, after hearing counsel for the

parties, has recorded a finding that the Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh,

in its general body meeting, has approved the

construction/development works, for which, the financial sanction

was granted by the BDO. It is also noticed by the learned Single

Judge that the power of granting financial sanction of the BDO for

construction/development works has been enhanced from

Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- by the standing order of the

Government of Rajasthan dated 6.4.2016 and

construction/development works, for which, the financial sanction

[2023:RJ-JD:26068-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-479/2023]

was granted by the BDO does not exceed amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and

after going through the material available on record, we are of the

opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered in

the writ petition because the construction/development works, for

which, the financial sanction was granted by the BDO has already

been approved in the general body meeting of the Panchayat

Samiti, Rajgarh and the said financial sanction is also within the

limit of the BDO.

Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant that the works,

for which, the financial sanction has been granted by the BDO are

of no use. It is also to be noticed that all the

construction/development works, for which, the financial sanctions

have been granted by the BDO are public works such as

construction of boundary walls of the primary schools or the

primary health centres, construction of interlocking roads of the

villages and construction of the public ponds etc.

In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this

special appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

14-msrathore/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)