Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI
Charan S/O Sovinda Waghmare District Bhandara
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Others
WRIT PETITION No. 1698 OF 2011
Decided on: 13-04-2012
Constitutional provisions no where show the intention of Parliament to deprive the Panchayats or Municipalities of their powers or to dilute their function as institutions of self- government. On the contrary, subject to provision of Constitution, the Legislature of State has been permitted to confer necessary powers and authority upon these bodies to enable them to function effectively. Article 243-ZD which makes a provision for District Planning Committee (DPC), is one such provision.
It requires the Legislature to make a law and stipulates that purpose of DPC is to consolidate the plan prepared by the Panchayats and Municipalities in Districts and to prepare a draft development plan for District as a whole. The provision noted above show relevance of matters of common interest, as specified in Article 243-ZD(3)(a) for said purpose. A Panchayat or Municipality can function only in area over which it has jurisdiction. Scheme prepared by it, therefore may not have any extra territorial application though possibility of its such impact or extends its benefit to outsiders cannot be ruled out.
The water reservoir or other physical/natural resources, in jurisdiction of such institution of local self-government can be conveniently exploited for larger area of two or more Panchayats or the Panchayats and municipalities at same cost or by saving revenue. To facilitate such exploitation, the Parliament has thought if fit to create a District Planning Committee (DPC) which can consolidate the otherwise separate plans prepared by the Panchayats and Municipalities and prepare a draft development plan for entire District as a whole.
It is, therefore, obvious that when such consolidation of development plans which are otherwise separate, becomes necessary or is found essential in larger public interest, DPC has been constituted to undertake that exercise. It has been given power to a drawn development plan for district as a whole also. Thus idea seems to be maximum utilization of resources at minimum costs by larger number of people spread over under different local bodies in a district, Article 243-ZD does not confer any executable status on such plans and the same need to be sent to Government of the State.
Thus, if development is restricted to area of only one authority and has no extraterritorial potential, the right of concerned local authority to proceed with it, is normally not prejudiced in any way.
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner in his capacity as Chairman, Finance and Works Committee of Zilla Parishad has sought quashing and setting aside of the list of works substituted on 25.03.2011 for completion under Account Head 3054 in the year 201011. These works are under Rural Roads Development Project and earlier list was approved on 10.03.2011. The consequential communication dated 28.03.2011 sent by the Collector, Bhandara in his capacity as Secretary of District-Planning Committee implementing it, has also been questioned. The substitution has been as per the orders of Guardian Minister for Bhandara District, who is joined personally as respondent no.2 in this matter. Because of this, a direction to Collector to release funds for works which have been given administrative approval on 06.01.2011 by two separate orders respectively by the Additional Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Engineer as also for works administratively approved by the Executive Engineer on 18.01.2011, is sought. The Additional Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Bhandara granted approval to 39 works and the Executive Engineer had granted approval to 21 works by their respective orders on the 06.01.2011. The Executive Engineer has later on granted administrative approval on 18.01.2011 to 2 works. Prayer has been also made to direct respondent no.4 to act in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.02.2008. The prayers disclose a contention that respondent no.4 and respondent no.2 have usurped the powers and authority vested in Zilla Parishad, Bhandara in that respect. There was an interim prayer to stay the substitution effected on 5.03.2011 and 28.03.2011, however, this Court has on 21.04.2011 subjected the work orders, if any, issued in terms thereof, to the result of the petition. The petition has been amended as per orders dated 01.08.2011 and challenge to communication dated 31.05.2011 issued by the State Government to respondent no.3 Divisional Commissioner is, also added. By it the State Government has communicated that if proposal of Zilla Parishad demanding funds is received by the District Planning Committee, the authority to select works out of the works mentioned in that proposal vested with the District Planning Committee. Thereafter, Zilla Parishad has to grant technical and administrative approval to such works which are selected by the District Planning Committee (D.P.C.).
2. In this background, with the consent of Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader representing all the respondents, the matter is heard finally by issuing Rule making it returnable forthwith.
It needs to be pointed out that earlier Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate was appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 7. These respondents are officers of Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. However, later on learned Government Pleader filed appearance also for these respondents & hence, by orders dated 15.02.2012, Shri Verma, Advocate has been discharged.
3. Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader has raised a preliminary objection about the locus or status of the petitioner to maintain this petition. He has stated that it is not filed in public interest. Hence, during hearing the matter was required to be adjourned and on 23.02.2012, Shri Samarth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner made a statement that the petition is being prosecuted for and on behalf of the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
4. Shri Samarth, learned Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner, a citizen of India is duly elected as Chairman of Finance & Works Committee of the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. Zilla Parishad, Bhandara constituted under Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act” for short) as got exclusive powers to undertake all development works as per the Eleventh Sched
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
