A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. Rule. Rule heard forthwith.

2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of a woman Member of Zilla Parishad, Washim, depicts the blatant violation of the constitutional provisions despite insertion of Seventy-Third Amendment to the Constitution conferring necessary status, namely constitutional status, on the Panchayat Raj Institutions in the extant political system, though more than two decades have passed. Eventually, this Court and rather this Bench had an occasion to deal with a similar situation and a decision was rendered by both of us with concurring judgments written separately in the case of Charan Sovinda Waghmare Vs. State of Mah. & others [2012 (4) Bom. C.R. 40]. We find no material difference in the facts of the present case, so also the violations of constitutional provisions as to Panchayati Raj on the part of the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that for beautification and development of garden near Rest House at Adan Project, Karanja, a provision of Rs.50,00,000/- was made for 200910, and administrative sanction for various sub-works in total was granted to the extent of Rs. 34.97 lakhs under the Account Head 3452276-Basic amenities for development of Tourist Places. It is not in dispute that the said allotment of funds was made over to the Zilla Parishad, Washim, and further to Panchayat Samitee, Karanja, in turn and as such the same was required to be spent by the Panchayat Samitee, Karanja, for getting the works done. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim, issued an order on 25th January, 2011 granting administrative sanction in exercise of power under Rule 4 Schedule-II of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads & Panchayat Samitees Audit Code, 1968, marking copies to Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samitee, Karanja, and Executive Engineer [Construction], Zilla Parishad, Washim. The work for strengthening of approach road to Adan Project and tarring thereof was also to be undertaken and accordingly orders were issued on 29th March, 2012 and 21st August, 2012 and obviously thereafter the work was to be completed under the supervision of the concerned Karanja Panchayat Samitee. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.5 - M.L.A., wrote a letter dated 14th May, 2012 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim, requesting him to transfer the entire allotted amount to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Karanja [Lad], for carrying out the works in question, and acting on the instructions from the concerned MLA, the Chief Executive Officer issued an order on 30th May, 2012, directing the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samitee, Karanja, to transfer the entire funds to State Department of Minor Irrigation, as ordered by respondent no.5 -MLA. The petitioner states that she made a representation to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, on 4th October, 2012, but he did not grant any stay and preferred to keep quiet.

Arguments :

4. Referring to the affidavits filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent no.6, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all the respondents have chosen to condemn the petitioner in unison, in order to please their political master, in this case, the respondent no.5-MLA. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, an attempt on the part of respondents to do so shows the manner in which the political and bureaucratic establishments are functioning in violation of the Seventy-Third Amendment to the Constitution. The counsel then argued that even the Divisional Commissioner did not bother to protect the constitutional rights involved in the subject-matter of the present petition, namely Panchayati Raj institutions, when he being the Divisional Head, ought to have interdicted. The counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the action of the Zilla Parishad impugned.

5. Per contra, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for res